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

291–300 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#291

Post by dudul »

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…

Email, video calls, photo sharing services, etc.

My parents ans I live on different continents and we still manage to speak regularly, share pictures, etc. All of that without any of us having a Facebook account.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#293

Post by Aritch89 »

chillacy wrote: post #93
spywaregorilla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which points made you stop and think

> 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? I have a kind of unpopular belief that we'd still have similar polarization if misinfo were just distributed on Fox + MSNBC, websites, and Twitter.

Social media is absolutely not the only responsible party. Many factors are at play, in my opinion our own decisions to think in dualities.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#295

Post by angelzen »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #261
throwaway09223 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a lot of folks forget that Facebook wanted to come in and clean up some of the filth in social media. They felt that by attaching your _real_ name to your posts, instead of a handle as was the traditional practice, that you would have something to lose (social standing, esteem, etc) and so you would be more thoughtful about your actions. The contrasts at the time were reddit, SomethingAwful, and 4chan. There…

> I think a lot of folks forget that Facebook wanted to come in and clean up some of the filth in social media. They felt that by attaching your _real_ name to your posts, instead of a handle as was the traditional practice, that you would have something to lose (social standing, esteem, etc) and so you would be more thoughtful about your actions. The contrasts at the time were reddit, SomethingAwful, and 4chan. There was _definitely_ extant toxicity on the internet and there were funny posts in the early days of GMail that you could stop them from displaying ads by inserting lots of expletives and bad words in your email (and so some would have GMail signatures that just lumped bad words in together and explained it as an ad circumvention thing).

This is such a great point. The pre-Facebook Internet was full of anonymous random garbage. But everyone knew it was inconsequential garbage. Adding real names and likes changed all that: today garbage has gained legitimacy and is displacing prior forms thereof.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#296

Post by forgingahead »

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 the US legacy media that is the main reason for the polarisation - the two party system is a factor, but the regular media is the one pitting "us vs. them" in every single minute of every broadcast.

Social media has downsides, but to lay the blame firmly at the feet of Facebook is to willfully ignore the culpability of CNN, Fox, the NYTimes, Washington Post, and many other legacy media outlets that are making tons of money otherizing the part of the country that is not their readership.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#297

Post by noizejoy »

scythe wrote: post #208
46756e wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is the likely biggest contributor but it also makes me incredibly sad because I don't see anyway that this is fixed. There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist.

>There is absolutely no way either political party will allow a multi-party system to ever exist. I've suspected for a while that the real secret to getting PR/MMP (=> multiparty) in the US is getting the Catholics on board. They're sick of the Trumpists and libertarians in the Republican Party but they'll never support the vehemently pro-choice Democrats. They should be obvious fans of a multiparty movement, and the…

Side note: Facebook reminds me a lot of the catholic church.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#298

Post by SkyPuncher »

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 suspect you, like I, have either minimal FB use or have healthy guard rails for our use and expectations.

A non-trivial portion of the country doesn't have that mindset. Further, many in that group lack the understanding of FB's ability to influence wide-spread opinions.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#300

Post by quadrangle »

pshc wrote: post #9

Three minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. You can stop reading by paragraph two at "We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health." All Facebook cares about is engagement.

I have NO doubt that if you asked Mark to push a button in which all the engagement were healthy, he'd do it after being assured the engagement amount wouldn't change.

He probably does care about safety, well-being and mental health" (though not about serial commas apparently). He cares about them in the same way that the vaping companies care about lung health (they exist to reduce cigarette smoking, right?)

Post reply on HN