Statement from Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#281

Post by angelzen » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #161

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've been framing this whole thing as a universal property of human society and it seems to fit pretty well for me. Outrage attracts attention in all group interactions. I can't think of a single large scale group forum where this isn't true. It's integral to an absurd degree in our news cycle. Howard Stern exploited this property in his rise to fame. It's a core element in state propaganda, well documented throughou…

> Communications on Facebook aren't worse than what was on the internet two decades ago.

Let's not underestimate the degree to which 'likes' (social affirmation ersatz) are eliciting the worst in people.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#282

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #258

mise_en_place wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reminds me if Mao, he'd always say whatever it took to gain power. But when he had it, he used it solely for personal gain or for personal goals... regardless of how many people got hurt, or killed as a result.

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#283

Post by bufferout » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

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…

According to one researcher (https://www.brown.edu/news/2020-01-21/polarization) polarization is increasing as parties become more closely aligned to ideologies (eg. religion, race). Looking across the aisle, your opponents looks more different then they did a decade ago.

Why? My theory is that data mining and software is identifying and targeting seams of ideology that are most readily influenced, so in effect campaigning efforts are efficiently widening the divide between parties. Social media just happens to be the choice source of this data, as well as the medium to influence.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#284

Post by sayonaraman » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

Aritch89 wrote: post #260

sayonaraman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, can you help me understand why you consider the comments and media around this statement a blatant lie? Im absolutely in support of people speaking their mind, especially in today’s culture but Im not sure why the public opinion of there being legitimate effects from social media on people, specifically Facebook, would be a blatant lie in your eyes?

what they call "divisive and extremist actions" that need to be censored is basically anything which doesn't agree with their political ideology. It's a direct attack on free speech.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#285

Post by pphysch » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #258

mise_en_place wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reminds me if Mao, he'd always say whatever it took to gain power. But when he had it, he used it solely for personal gain or for personal goals... regardless of how many people got hurt, or killed as a result.

Mao Zedong was a "founder" of a militant "startup" called the Communist Party of China during a vast civil war; his experience has virtually nothing in common with a non-founder career climber in 21st century SV.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#286

Post by intricatedetail » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

So much gaslighting, it's hard to read. This evil company should be closed!

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#287

Post by opportune » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #157

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. 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…

This, their entire premise of modifying their engagement-optimization to try to account for wellbeing but still optimize engagement is flawed. It’s clear that outrage and anger drive engagement over all else. If they want to fix things they can just bring back chronological feeds; but they won’t because the incentives are just too misaligned.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#288

Post by opportune » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

atonse wrote: post #229

ramraj07 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like saying that the people working in the slaughter houses are actually kind folk who do like animals and care deeply for their well being. That can be absolutely true, but they still work for a slaughter house. Your care and trust doesn’t matter a bit because the fundamental nature of the organization is that it profits from cruelty. I understand it pays well, and that maybe they are trying to be nice and all,…

I actually think this analogy is the very opposite of what you may be trying to explain. A lot of people that work at slaughterhouses do so because they have no other choice. It is the best opportunity that's afforded to them. It is a job that causes trauma for many, often has long, grueling hours, and doesn't pay well. Working at Facebook couldn't be further from that situation. Never mind the obvious perks (the tec…

I have said no to a Facebook offer before (I actually recommend everybody apply to Facebook, they give great offers you can use for negotiation elsewhere and it wastes their time). Like you said, we’re talking about the differences between insanely and very high here. I don’t think a 20% increase in TC is worth making the world a worse place, and I’d hope for most people that’s not a hard decision.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#289

Post by nikitaga » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

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 this idea matches what parent poster is saying.

Banality of evil is about how ordinary people can work on evil things while not being sociopaths and still being considered ordinary people. But it also presumes that there is some truly evil / sociopathic force driving this through authority, such as Hitler himself in case of Eichmann.

On the other hand the parent poster is saying that Facebook is simply too big to not end up evil, that evil is an emergent property of the million different processes that is Facebook. That view absolves not only regular workers of Facebook who are helping the company achieve evil things, but also the people who are actually in control of the company – Mark Zuckerberg and his senior executive team.

Personally I'm not buying either of these absolutions, but especially not the grand universal absolution that the parent poster affords to the whole company.

Ultimately it is someone's decision to put profits above everything else. Engagement doesn't excessively optimize itself. Users' contact books aren't getting stolen by themselves. Shadow profiles don't fill up themselves. "Just doing my job" is a choice, not an excuse. Many people are complicit in making and implementing these decisions for their own benefit, and they are all responsible for the outcome.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#290

Post by quadrangle » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

timClicks wrote: post #108

slg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 thought that a 2 party system means that both parties attempt to occupy the center, because there are so few swing voters.

They don't have to be in the center, they just have to make the lesser-evil argument. They just need to express to the swing voters that the other party is even more extreme.