Statement from Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#181

Post by freetinker » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #91

jedberg wrote: 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…

I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. It's all well and good that they want to make Facebook safe and healthy, and I honestly believe plenty of people working there are trying to do just that. However, they are operating under the constraint that they cannot move backwards on profits, and therefore engagement. Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under…

Spot on.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#182

Post by noobermin » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: 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 if it a form of a modified Hanlon's razor, "never attribute to malice what can be explained by lack of capability" particularly because they are too big, it sounds like the answer is to break them up so they aren't too big. Is that the solution?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#183

Post by zw123456 » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

Lots of ink will be spilled over this. Heck, here's my 2 cents worth.

All this recalls the "corporations are not people" vs. "corporations are people".

OK, corporations are organizations made up of people, and share certain characteristics of people. Strengths and weaknesses.

People often make rationalizations for something they know is wrong but may benefit them.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#184

Post by alphabettsy » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

anon84827820 wrote: post #99

the reality is that people would stop using facebook if they really hated it that much, and yet it still has 2.5 billion MAUs. there's a very loud minority of people who keep screaming "facebook bad!" because the NYT told them to (because facebook is eating their lunch). facebook doesn't inject your brain with foreign chemicals, it doesn't hold a gun to your head and force you to scroll through your timeline. don't l…

I don’t like to use Facebook, but extended family events are often planned on Facebook, local businesses sometime only use Facebook and Marketplace has become a popular alternative to Craigslist.

As usual, it’s not that simple. It should be ok to complain about Facebook and ask it to be better.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#185

Post by nickloewen » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

ravi-delia wrote: post #117

nickloewen wrote: post #56

With the caveat that I don’t know much about Facebook’s research projects… the question “If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?” sets alarm bells ringing for me—because I can imagine a cigarette company saying the same thing about the scientists they hired to argue that smoking isn’t so bad after all, or an oil…

I think that the point here is that all the controversy is because of a study from Facebook's own research. If a cigarette company came out with a study showing cigarettes were dangerous, perhaps it would be a different story. Of course, I wouldn't say that being aware of the problems your product causes makes you less culpable; just the opposite.

Yes those are fair points!

At the same time, I think that when it comes to assessing whether the company is acting in good faith or not, it is important to consider not just what research they do or don’t do, but also which findings they choose to promote and which they choose to keep internal…

(Part of the fiasco with tobacco or climate is that those companies knew the risks associated with their products well enough, but didn’t publicize the findings that might cast them in a bad light in the same way that they publicized the findings that supported a “let’s wait and see” approach to policy. See for example https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...)

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#186

Post by addicted » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

addicted wrote: post #171

skissane wrote: post #73

> 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…

It’s interesting that you don’t even agree with the fact that Zuckerberg claims. That polarization is declining or flat outside the US. Your claims that it’s less than in the US, but still increasing outside the US is a lot more aligned with reality. But the fact is that this isn’t the defense Zuckerberg thinks it is. In fact, it may even suggest the absolute opposite. Facebook has never been as popular outside the U…

The more likely reason, however, is that assuming FB or social media in general increase polarization, it would almost certainly worsen it in the US more than anywhere else because of the US’s fairly unique 2 party structure combined with the primary system, both of which would almost certainly exacerbate any polarization effects caused by an external factor.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#187

Post by thrdbndndn » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

hokumguru wrote: post #18

Honestly am I the only one that doesn’t think that Facebook is that bad? Some of those points that he makes really should make you stop and think.

I get why people hate Facebook, but to me Facebook is no worse (or better) than what a top social network service would be, in this format (a timeline that you can post anything) at least.

If FB shuts down today there would be another one that is occupying the exactly same space, having the same influence on the society soon.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#188

Post by rumblerock » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

anomaloustho wrote: post #66

spywaregorilla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which points made you stop and think

I think Facebook is “that bad”, but one point I thought was believable was about major advertisers not wanting to be associated with hate mongering posts in the first place. I’m prone to believe that, but also not sure that is has anything to do with the other issues at hand.

I'm not convinced that this is a real concern for most advertisers. Facebook and its properties are so big that they're a potential revenue source you can't ignore. Also, it's different than your ads programmatically appearing on some extremist website for the world to openly make the association. Everyone lives in their own little bubble, and they know the ads have little to do with the content they're seeing, and more with what they engage with or are more likely to buy.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#189

Post by TulliusCicero » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #91

jedberg wrote: 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…

I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. It's all well and good that they want to make Facebook safe and healthy, and I honestly believe plenty of people working there are trying to do just that. However, they are operating under the constraint that they cannot move backwards on profits, and therefore engagement. Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under…

A rule more analogous to Facebook's presumed position would be, "you can fix climate change, but you can't do anything that would reduce GDP per capita". Which in practice means that while some useful tools would be on the table, others would definitely not be.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#190

Post by busymom0 » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

kumarvvr wrote: post #106

skissane wrote: post #73

> 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…

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,…

Canadian multiparty system is a joke. All the parties are basically the same in Canada.