Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

301–310 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#301

I don't get why Twitter always gets a free pass on the harms from misinformation. I have seen so much fake news around vaccines, election integrity on there not to mention that it's the nexus of woke cancellation mobs. I think it's because Twitter is seen as doing more (banning Trump, putting notifications on posts), but is that actually the case relative to what FB is doing?

Isn't twitter just some sort of tiny echo chamber? Don't we regularly see these studies claimg that only 2%of the users generate 99% of the content? Twitter is only harmful to businesses who hire marketing firms who think twitter is representative of the general population.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#302

> 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…

Or it could be the enemies of democracy can leverage social media for division and the enemies of authoritarianism can’t. And some countries don’t have as big of targets on their backs as the US.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#303
post #2

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…

(a mild parody)

"Hey multitude, how are you? I'm feeling some pressure and I wanted to say something to make me seem like a decent person for a change. Let's see if I get it right LOL.

First, we had a bad outage, but users are so addicted that they'll all return as soon as the monkey on their backs starts screaming. In fact, the little display on my desk says they are already back.

Second, now that I've stopped my red-faced rage fit about the testimony, I wanted to reflect on the public debate that makes me look bad, and by extension, makes you feel like a nest of weasels. Whenever we stop making money hand-over-fist for just a moment, we probably should make some kind of placating statement about issues like safety, well-being, and mental health. Then get right back to shoving ads in front of the zombies and mining personal data for billions!

Besides, many of the claims don't make any sense. If we were lying all the time, why would I repeatedly say "Oops, gosh I didn't mean to do that, it was an accident!" like a five-year-old child who doesn't understand consequences? Why would I, huh?

And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are the factions so stable in the US? Year after year, we have really stable factions. That's a sign of a strong democracy.

At the heart (it's just an expression!) of these accusations is this idea that we love making money more than we love our zombie user-base. That's just not true. I mean, zombies are boring unless they somehow get over the security barriers.

The argument that we deliberately make people angry with our crap for profit is deeply hurtful. We make money from ads, and our advertisers consistently tell us they don't want to get caught and be associated with the garbage that they produce. Seems fair to me! Anyway, I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed, apart from, you know, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and so on.

But of everything published, I'm particularly troubled about kids. The reality is that young people use technology, but not ~our~ technology. We're deeply committed to addicting the little beasts to Messenger Kids. That's guaranteed future revenue.

But given the sh!tstorm that whatsername has caused, we've paused that project until people get back to fussing about other things and take the heat off of us.

It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress. They need a false sense of support. Give 'em an account and let God sort 'em out, I say.

Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should do more than pretend to have values and ethics. It's all too complicated and it interferes with making moolah. Let Congress make the laws, and let corporations bribe elected officials the way the democracy requires. We have these institutions for a reason.

If we're going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it's important not to get hit with the blame. So I'll be on the horn to elected officials and wiring money to their off-shore bank accounts. (How about those Panama Papers? I know, right! Crazy!)

I know it's frustrating to see our profitable work receive sustained criticism from weirdos. But I believe that over the long term if we keep making huge profits, people will eventually buy shares and stop their whinging. In the meantime, I've asked leaders across the company to do deep purges of any New Age kooks who might go rogue.

When I reflect on our work, I think about the money and control. This is why billions of zombies are hooked. Keep up the good work, turn up the beats, and nevermind the screams outside."

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#304
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…

> The best I can come up with is that Facebook is so big that the "evil" is an emergent property of all the different things that are happening

> so while the individuals involved have good intentions with what they are working on, the sum total of all employees' intentions ends up broken.

I think, honestly, that a huge thing is that when you put together basically the entirety of the internet, and society into a giant conversational feedback loop you're bound to spin out the worst, especially if FB wasn't 100% of the time trying to filter it (which they weren't because its a business and the problems weren't always equally known).

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#305
post #154
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 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.

But it's also the sort of thing where you don't have to change the whole system all at once in one go. There are now two states that will use RCV for federal elections as well as many more local municipalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_Un... ).

With any luck, these reforms can stick and hopefully expand— necessary steps if we're ever to end this political duopoly.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to internal studies retrieved by Haugen, Facebook found that 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse, and 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse. This is a snippet of the research mark's referring to. Oh good, only 13.5% of girls feeling more suicidal.

No that's of girls who have thoughts of suicide, 13.5% say it makes it worse. Ok, is that good or bad? The number is meaningless without a control.

One person having one more thought of suicide is too many. So no number - other than zero - is "meaningless".

If Facebook made money doing something they knew there was a non-zero risk of pushing even one person to suicide, they are a sociopathic organization.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#308

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 agree with you but I also don't live in the US.

The impact of Facebook on America is on a completely different playing field from us.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#309
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…

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…

I don't necessarily subscribe to the Gervais Principle[1] other than thinking it's an interesting lens through which to reexamine motives and motivations of coworkers, but sometimes the terminology is damn apt (at least for one group...).

1: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#310

> 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…

This will sound dramatic, but could it be because the US is the most important market for both advertising and political disinformation?

Regarding advertising, for companies like Facebook, they may have billions of DAU but still derive the majority of their revenue from rich countries like the US. In 2020 the US and Canada were 45% of Facebook's revenue according to this random website I found: https://statstic.com/facebook-revenue-by-geography/ That's way more than the other regions in terms of $/user, so Facebook is a lot more incentivized to over-optimize for engagement based on US users. Depending on how much the algorithmic feed changes from country to country, it's possible that other countries experience less polarization simply because their culture is weighted less in training the feed's engagement optimization algorithms.

Regarding disinformation and political destablization, most countries simply aren't relevant enough on the world stage to be worth investing money in targetting in this area. The US, China, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, India are all probably relevant enough. China and Russia effectively don't use facebook and are the most obvious non-US-aligned bad actors. They would also get way more bang-for-their-buck targeting the US than other countries. Note, I don't think is as widespread of a problem as many people think it is, but I bring it up because it's relevant in the context of political polarisation since there is strong evidence that it has occurred at least in the 2016 election: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-....

Actually, the two combined can be scary. If you can use outrage (great for engagement) to drive engagement in your content which is designed to politically destabilize the US, you can get a huge reach. This is effectively what you see a lot of the time in highly-engaged US content on facebook anyway: politically inclined outrage.

Post reply on HN