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

241–250 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#241

Post by mark-r »

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…

If Conway's Game of Life taught us anything, it's that even very simple rules can have surprising emergent behavior.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#242

Post by anon84827820 »

alphabettsy wrote: post #184
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.

it's okay to complain about facebook and ask it to be better, but look at the situation we're in. people are claiming zuckerberg is responsible for the capitol insurrection and the genocide in Myanmar. we've reached full-on hysteria at this point, facebook derangement syndrome is real.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#243

Post by Aritch89 »

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 think a lot of people don’t have the self awareness to realize the impacts on their own personal life. Many people aren’t able to be introspective or even fathom the possibility of potential defects of the internet or social media. It’s one thing to say the thing itself is bad. It’s another to say what’s it’s doing to them is bad and they need to initiate change for themselves. People get addicted to habits/ mindsets and that’s just as powerful as drugs.Understand your audience.

That being said, a large number of people are also pleased and are either able to use it without being affected by the negative effects or being ok with them/ not believing they are being harmed. I believe technology and the ability to connect can be a powerful and positive force when used in a healthy way.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#244

Post by midev »

dannykwells wrote: post #77
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…

This is called the Banality of Evil. Look up Hannah Arendt. It is a well established idea.

I don't think that's what the OP means, though. It's not "decent" people doing evil things. It's great people doing great things, within an organization that also does bad things.

There are some amazing people on their safety and moderation teams. They're also fighting marketing algorithms, I'm sure.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#245

Post by shkkmo »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #189
BobbyJo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really since facebook revenue is much more directly tied to engagnement than GDP ia to fossile fuel consumption.

To extens the metaphor, Facebook's "alternative energy" is non-advertising based revenue. I see zero efforts from facebook to move away from ad based revenue so there is zero chance that Facebook is going to make meaningful progress in changing.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#246

Post by panaffa »

titzer wrote: post #34

> Now that today's testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we're in. I'm sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn't reflect the company we know. Yeah, we know you don't know, because you're looking at it from on top of a mountain of 100 billion dollars, Mark. There isn't a single damned thing that can change your picture of it being the absolute greatest t…

So agree. Comes off as super cringe. Silicon Valley has lost amy moral high ground from the early days and should act like any other corporate... "its not illegal and it would lose us money to change, why would we change it?" That would be honest, logical and frankly refreshing

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#247

Post by johnsimer »

wpietri wrote: post #173
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 maybe Zuck is telling the truth here, that they are trying to fix all this. But no one can see the forest from the trees. Ah, this is what I think of as Schrodinger's Accountability. Zuckerberg and Facebook's senior execs are simultaneously: A) so brilliant for running Facebook that they deserve to be incredibly rich, and B) so normal that they can't possibly be expected to understand the consequences of their a…

Now adding “Schrodinger’s Accountability” to my list of mental models

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#248

Post by fighterpilot »

LordHumungous wrote: post #196
fighterpilot wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the facts on the ground preclude the moral panic angle. Skyrocketing teen depression since 2012, a genocide in Myanmar, ethnic violence in India, a riot/insurrection borne out of fake news on election integrity, woke cancellation mobs empowered by Twitter and the power of wokeness over institutions, large amounts of vax hesitancy. All of these nasty things are circumstantially tied back to social media in one way or another.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#249

Post by moron4hire »

sayonaraman wrote: post #214
zestyping wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the point Frances Haugen is making, and it's why this is so different and so much more significant than the other Facebook scandals and leaks in the past. Haugen repeated over and over again her testimony today that Facebook is full of smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people, and that she has great empathy for them, even Mark Zuckerberg. Her point is that they have created a system of incenti…

How is giving access to user data for "research" is better than that whole data privacy scandal with Cambridge Analytica. these days research comes with a set of politically charged assumptions, for example the definitions of "hate speech" and "misinformation" are different based on which political camp you ask So giving access to Cambridge Analytica is bad but to some other partisan "think tank" is fine? who would m…

The government has systems in place for doing this. For example, the SBA has tons of data about small businesses across the country. You can get access to it... IF you are part of a research institution and go directly to their dedicated research facility so that you can't exfiltrate the data. Such a model is open, just not free. It would probably be the right model for this issue.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#250

Post by adolph »

WoodenChair wrote: post #145
adolph wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What “does his majority control over Facebook” have to do with the accusations about Facebook’s behavior? Would the behavior be ok if it were majority controlled by mutual funds?

> What “does his majority control over Facebook” have to do with the accusations about Facebook’s behavior? Would the behavior be ok if it were majority controlled by mutual funds? It has to do with the fact that if you control something, you are directly responsible for it. By having sole control of FB, MZ is completely responsible for it, for better or worse.

So if it were controlled by mutual funds people would want mutual funds to be held responsible? Or would they turn to the CEO?
Post reply on HN