251–260 of 699 posts
...and the deeper concern from the rest of us outside of Facebook is how the DNS servers can become overloaded with requests when a big system like this goes down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who mentions the banality of evil, dannykwells, has an excellent point. But there's more at play here. I briefly worked on Twitter's anti-abuse engineering. Many of the people on that team cared a lot about protecting people. I sure did. But we didn't have the necessary power to actually solve the problem. The people who did have that power were senior execs. They might say that they cared. In their heart…
There is a phenomenon I have witnessed working both in high growth startups and traditional Fortune 500s. At some point, the company starts attracting Dark Triad personality types that cement themselves in upper management positions, usually starting at Director level. These people are extremely dangerous, one of them had access to my corporate laptop (as was standard policy for that company) and would torment me by…
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…
Does anyone else remember when facebook got rid of the friends only feed ~2014/2015? That's when I stopped using facebook so I'm not sure if it's been brought back since then, but I'm assuming they haven't. To me getting rid of that feed is in direct conflict with "Meaningful Social Interactions". I'm not sure if anyone else feels the same, but a lot of this post feels very gaslighty to me.
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?
The implicit assertion is that this behavior wouldn't happen if not for Zuckerberg personally causing the behavior. As someone who has worked at large tech companies though, I find that to be an extremely questionable assertion. FB has incentives. Zuckerberg didn't invent the dynamics surrounding their business, and I don't see how having a faceless bureaucracy in charge would lead to an organization that is more wil…
https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-reforming-governmen...
Mmm, requires login, can anyone share the post? Thanks in advance!
I wanted to share a note I wrote to everyone at our company. --- Hey everyone: it's been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you. First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we've had in years. We've spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to peop…
Some examples:
> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?
Tobacco companies researched their own products also.
> ...widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives
Low-tar tobacco is widely recognized as better and safe than the alternatives.
> ... that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them ...
That doesn't mean that for many teens it hurts them. Just because narcissists love your product doesn't make it good.
> That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now.
Updated just means "new version", not actually better. Lobbyists have NOT advocated for protections that would undermine profits, which is the very point this whistleblower is making.
> making more research publicly available
Implying it has been kept private.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who mentions the banality of evil, dannykwells, has an excellent point. But there's more at play here. I briefly worked on Twitter's anti-abuse engineering. Many of the people on that team cared a lot about protecting people. I sure did. But we didn't have the necessary power to actually solve the problem. The people who did have that power were senior execs. They might say that they cared. In their heart…
There is a phenomenon I have witnessed working both in high growth startups and traditional Fortune 500s. At some point, the company starts attracting Dark Triad personality types that cement themselves in upper management positions, usually starting at Director level. These people are extremely dangerous, one of them had access to my corporate laptop (as was standard policy for that company) and would torment me by…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was it because those industries thought those issues were more important than profit? I take a more cynical view - they wanted to get ahead of the narrative before the public did. It meant a better PR angle, a more well thought out strategy to thwart external pressure, and a better forecast on how long you could milk the cow.
To be clear, I was being sarcastic. I agree with you and don't think it is in anyway cynical. It is the obvious reason. It allowed these industries to change the public discourse regarding these issues. For example, the oil industry was a big force behind the "personal responsibility" angle of fighting environmental problems trying to shift public perceptions from blaming the oil industry to blaming individual consum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok... First off there's no way Zuckerberg wrote this. Might've been involved but these are the words of a marketing team working with a legal team. Secondly why do you see Zuckerberg as a great CEO?
so many CEOs would come back with tail tucked between their legs when there is an aggressive PR attack, it's so refreshing to see someone unapologetic for a change, standing their ground against blatant lies and angry mobs with pitchforks. This gives hope in the American future.