Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#191

Post by hoppyhoppy2 »

imilk wrote: post #120
aaomidi wrote: post #78

Gonna be honest. This isn't a level playing field. It's not like Zuckerberg sat there and wrote this. They have the money to find the best psychologists etc etc to write a response in such a way that resonates more with people vs a whistleblower that's taking on goliath, is stressed, etc. What really should happen is calling a few random employees based on an organizational chart in and making them testify under oath…

Well for all the money & resources they have, it's a pretty tone deaf message. No remorse or even the slightest admission that they could be doing better. Pretty much asking everyone to not believe what we've all been experiencing for the last few years.

Apparently the lack of remorse is part of Zuck's new "no more apologies" PR strategy, as reported in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/technology/zuckerberg-fac... (archive link: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21... )

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#192

Post by theyx »

mbesto wrote: 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…

Also, industry-leading research? Those leaked internal data about instagram are worse than an undergrad term paper. Look at those n values, for something as big as Fb that’s not even serious research.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#193

Post by istorical »

chevman wrote: post #27

This is the type of corporate thinking characteristic of people who've been in their roles too long - over invested, myopic, and out of touch. The real question is, what is the end game for Zuckerberg and who takes over FB next? This may be the inflection point on the curve.

Zuckerberg IS facebook. He controls it. Who's to say even if the main FB app and IG app and WhatsApp apps all lost their entire userbases and revenues went to 0.05% of what they are now, that he wouldn't just run the 500 person skeleton of what they currently are and just focus on his latest pet project, whether it be VR or something else. Honestly that's what I'd do if I was a billionaire with a passion for technology and a failing company but with millions in cash reserves.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#195

Post by YossarianFrPrez »

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…

Zuckerberg is making an almost entirely emotional appeal in his statement. Most of his claims are not backed up / buttressed with facts, numbers, and specifics. The statement is designed to make a reader feel bad for Facebook as if Facebook was a friend, and not a corporation with billions of dollars in quarterly profits.

Though the statement seems well-meaning, etc., it is weaselly and manipulative. It also conveniently doesn't address some of deeper issues from Frances Haugen's testimony.

For example, Haugen focused on the fact that Zuckerberg has created a relatively flat organization, where if decisions help the core metric they must be good, and vice versa. Haugen testified that Zuckerberg was made aware that instituting a newsfeed tweak would entail a) small ding to the core engagement metrics and b) would decrease violence in Ethiopia... He chose the metric over the decreased violence.

There comes a point where blindly pursuing metrics -- be it money or engagement -- without regard to the effects on society are hard if not impossible to distinguish from sociopathic behavior.

Also, let's not forget that researchers and renown statisticians employed by / sponsored by Big Tobacco (e.g. R.A. Fisher) convinced themselves that smoking didn't cause cancer. [0]

[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2000852/

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#196

Post by LordHumungous »

fighterpilot wrote: post #111
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…

Not sure if I fully agree with that argument. With the US being a superpower, the stakes are high and this invites unique foreign influence via social media. That foreign influence could be state coordinated or just come from regular people who have an emotional stake in US politics. I've seen it myself, outside of the US people are more concerned about US politics than their own and engage with it on social media wh…

This is the kind of conspiratorial thinking that makes me think we're in a moral panic here.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#197

Post by theyx »

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…

US is a weak democracy, simple as that.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#198

Post by remarkEon »

andrewingram wrote: post #144
kumarvvr wrote: post #106

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.

The Lib-Dems were part of Cameron’s coalition government if memory serves. Ironically the former leader of that party (Nick Clegg) now works for … Facebook.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#199

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#200

Post by Aritch89 »

m4rtink wrote: post #124
fedbook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do a lot of good bringing people together, but it’s a double edged sword with massive potential for abuse. It’s not up for debate that Facebook causes harm. The only question is how much is too much? At what point do we step in, tell them their mitigations are ineffective, and break up or regulate their systems?

The question is how many alternative systems and services people could use to keep touch with their loved ones Facebook steamrolledby network effect and questionable business practices. Services that might not require you to expose your real identity to the whole internet, that might not exfiltrate your full contact list from your phone or would not apply questionable morals and censorship on the content you exchange…

Texting, calling, video chat…
Post reply on HN