411–420 of 699 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Facebook has created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes" Exactly right. The solution baffles me. "Force Facebook to reveal and permit research so we understand the system and fix it" Basically keep the harmful system in place, but pass the reins to an unspecified cabal hiding under the innocuous word "we". Hard pass.
end algorithmic recommendations
It’s so weird reading about Web3 and the focus presumably on digital sovereignty and privacy and to see a platform moving backwards and away from any semblance of an open internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you ever really meant to solve the problem or just be a Potemkin village in case anyone accuses the execs of not caring.
Meant to by whom? I was very serious about it. So was my boss and most of the people on my team. Beyond that, I don't have direct data. My guess is that execs would have been very happy if we could have quickly solved the problem in a way where revenue and growth were not harmed and nobody important had to go out of their way. But online abuse isn't like that. It's a hard problem. So I think execs were satisfied to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be missing the point if you think your point is orthogonal to theirs. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have to be painted as a reptiloid in order for his actions to be bad, or for those actions to cause harm. More than blaming shit needs to get fixed right? We can still hold people culpable, but we don't need to do that, don't need to indict anyone before trying to fix a problem that is self perpetuating due to indivi…
The senior execs are the ones who set up the incentive systems there. They are the ones who are richly paid to provide oversight. So either this is exactly what they want or they're hopelessly incompetent. And yes, I think we should change the incentives. We should change them such that executives face direct personal punishment for negligent or intentional harm. We should have learned that lesson during the 2008 fin…
I think the definition of success they're operating under is vastly different from yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be that facebook can't fix itself, but what makes anyone think an even larger and more powerful organization is the answer and won't itself succumb to its own system of incentives? She is pushing for the equivalent of The Ministry of Truth. Relevant testimony here: https://twitter.com/gillibrandny/status/1445451624005001217 Remember, this is the system of incentives that had us spend 20 disastrous years in Afg…
Nothing in her testimony referenced a "Ministry of Truth" or any type of censorship. She specifically spoke against "content-based" solutions.
Senator Gillibrand: "We need a Data Protection Agency."
Frances Haugen: "And there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this"
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.
While it did make it (suicidal thoughts, aiui) worse for 13.5%, it made it better for 38% (see https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/mental-health-f... slide 10). Is that better than schools? Is that better than television? Is it better than malls? Is that even good overall or bad overall? How does it compare to competitive sports? What about grades in school? I mean, we could take the position that if any of…
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…
That’s sort of how things are where I work. The systems are so complicated and the interactions are often algorithmic and machine learning based. We try to maintain documentation and architecture artifacts with as much accuracy as possible. But in some cases things may as well be magic because no one really understands the whole process.
Then they added the news feed. Questions:
1. Why can't users turn off the news feed permanently and only see user-created posts?
2. Why can't users organize/sort their news feed how they like rather than being "optimized"?
3. Why isn't Facebook making sure to include articles from respected news sources (NPR, NYT, WSJ, Axios, etc.) in everyone's feed?
Why doesn't FB do any of these obvious solutions to bring everyone out of their silos and set a baseline of truth again? Because all those "kind and thoughtful" people working there would lose millions. That's way more important than the future of the country.
Edit: Also, every media outlet in the country are hypocrites as well. They shouldn't allow sharing on Facebook until they clean up their act, or at the minimum, stop using Open Graph on their web pages, making the share a simple URL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing in her testimony referenced a "Ministry of Truth" or any type of censorship. She specifically spoke against "content-based" solutions.
It's right there in the link OP provided. Senator Gillibrand: "We need a Data Protection Agency." Frances Haugen: "And there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this"