Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

151–160 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#151
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd. Doesn’t seem to require log in for me. The post just loads without having to click anything.

Login required here too, I bet it has something to do with cookies or adblock.

Do you use a VPN? I do and it requires login, but not if disabled.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#152
post #100
post #47

> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? > If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? This is HILARIOUSLY out of touch with reality. You don't call someone a whistleblower if the reports they leaked were TRANSP…

Nothing this “whistleblower” has said is revelatory… she’s stating things we already know. The question should be “why now?”.

Here's what's new: she is explaining the situation to politicians of both parties in terms of the perverse incentive structure at Facebook, and successfully diverting the conversation away from whether it should censor more Democratic or Republican content, toward the real issue: that no one has both the resources and the information to assess and improve safety on the platform.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#153

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

The political climate in the UK is pretty savage right now, Brexit pretty much split the country in two. I don’t think this is just a US phenomenon, especially given a lot of what happens in US politics bleeds into the rest of the world (which is why a lot of us follow it so closely).

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#154
post #96

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to more polarization. If you have multiple political parties, polarization can only go so far because there will be centrist groups working against polarization. In the US, there is no force pushing for centrism.

I agree that this is the likely biggest contributor but it also makes me incredibly sad because I don't see anyway that this is fixed.

There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because most other countries have multi party systems. The polarization is still there, but spread thin amongst various factions. In the US, people are shoehorned into R or D. Edit : I would also like to point out that the OP is a bit confused between cause and effect. In the US, the effect is deep polarization. However, the cause is the power of mass communication, especially misinformation and blatant lies,…

The UK doesn’t have a true multi-party system. First-past-the-post elections all but ensure there are only two dominant political parties. It’s really only been a game between Labour and Conservatives for longer than most of us have been alive.

And, you have deep divisions there. If you perceive one single enemy, all your efforts will be focused on that one. If you have three, your efforts are spread out.

This makes the divisions, rhetoric and social environment seem less severe, but the problems are just as big.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#157
post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

> So maybe Zuck is telling the truth here, that they are trying to fix all this.

Except they are just playing around with the outrage algorithms, the problem is created by Facebook, not some natural occurence. If they wanted to "fix" anything they would make their algorithmic timelines opt-in, or at least an option, for starters.

It is of course very much in the interest of the people working at Facebook to make this seem like a problem that is just there and that it is some "difficult to solve", that "moderation doesn't scale" etc.. These are deflections to make everyone ignore that Facebooks tampering is where it starts.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#158
>If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us?

And yet I have family who are absolutely convinced there are nanobots in the vaccine.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#159

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

Is it true that polarization has not increased in other countries? Is there published data on it? Would be interesting to see which countries are experiencing historically high levels of polarization.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#160
post #96

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to more polarization. If you have multiple political parties, polarization can only go so far because there will be centrist groups working against polarization. In the US, there is no force pushing for centrism.

I despise first-past-the-post, but it does not force two party systems. Look at the UK and Canada, who have two parties able to form a government, but multiple viable parties.

If you want a culprit, blame the lack of whipping that both US parties do as a matter of political culture. Since you have historically had all these cuckoo crazy subgroups within both parties, it has meant that other parties simply do not have the bandwidth to exist.

However, in the last four years, the Republicans have started to blindly follow their leader as a matter of pride. I see that as the one positive change the Trump era has brought; yes the man to bring it about has been a disgrace, and has used it for vile purposes, but if both parties stick to following their political platforms and leaders far more, the US can end up in a better place.

Post reply on HN