Is there a non-Facebook link to this please?
Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
421–430 of 699 posts
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#422> 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…
You don't need to go anywhere else to find polarization. Right here on HN, conservative points are downvoted, flagged and shunned despite of having excellent credibility, just a different perspective of core values. This was not the case, note the number of downvoted comments in this highly debated topic in 2016, they were very few: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12926678 It's one of those things that says a lo…
You need at least a 3rd viable political party to fix this. A two party system is polarized on issues. Democrats believe conservatives are homophobic, racist womanizers and conservatives believe liberals are communist, devil-worshipping pedos. It doesn't matter if either of them have facts the other party is so opposed they won't listen.
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#423I'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…
There is only one way to fix this, prevent anyone from influencing what is shown more prominently to users. The simplest solution for that would be simply chronological order only from your friends.
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like you more than anyone would see that solving the types of problems FB is trying to solve eg: freedom of speech vs user safety / harm reduction is not some super simple problem, no? I wouldn't call Reddit evil despite the fact that many powermods are both amazing contributors doing free labor and curating great communities while also simultaneously abusing their power every day to silence people they disagre…
Point of order: the issue with Facebook is the various engagement algorithms that they are and have been perfecting. This is unlike anything humans have ever seen before. We are no longer anywhere near to 'the ground'.
Yeah, there is a big difference between Reddit and Facebook in the above comparison. All the examples of issues with Reddit can more or less be attributed to specific people and fall more in line with "bad" human behavior. Facebook's algorithm is something entirely different in it's design - it's primary objective is to manipulate the behavior of the user on the other side, and what it chooses to show or not show doesn't follow any human line of reasoning outside of some loose built in "safeguards" and unenviable content moderators meant to serve as the guardrails.
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#425Zuck sounding like Trump
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well, there could certainly be personality and technique overlap
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#427Honestly 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.
You may be one of the only ones, yes.
I have never signed up for Facebook but if my family members have ever "uploaded their phone contacts to find more Facebook Friends" or if my relatives have ever uploaded pictures with me in the picture ((Facebook has detected a face we don't recognize. Please tag the person in this picture)), or if I have a US Government Name and/or Social Security Number, there's a company that is building a DATABASE DOSSIER with information about me. I cannot ask them to please DELETE information they have about me because those Shadow Profiles are SECRET, I'm not even supposed to KNOW that these creepy data-scrapers have a file on me.
Facebook is just the front end for the NSA / surveillance state backend, and at this point it's frightening how Too Big to Fail they have become.
When you're designing a Big Brother dystopia in which everyone is tracked and surveilled, step one is to create something like Facebook. "All your friends are doing it! You should too!"
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#428I'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…
Another "statement", one not intended for the public
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/growth-at-any-c...
(Note: "Connecting people" here does not mean providing communications services, it means using behind-the-scenes, unconsented, and sometimes deceptive tactics to figure out whether and how people are connected to each other IRL.)
Andrew Bosworth June 18, 2016
The Ugly
We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly.
We connect people.
That can be good if they make it positive. Maybe someone finds love. Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.
So we connect more people
That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.
And still we connect people.
The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is de facto good. It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.
That isn't something we are doing for ourselves. Or for our stock price (ha!). It is literally just what we do. We connect people. Period.
That's why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it.
The natural state of the world is not connected. It is not unified. It is fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different products. The best products don't win. The ones everyone use win.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear this. Most of us have the luxury of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love. But make no mistake, growth tactics are how we got here. If you joined the company because it is doing great work, that's why we get to do that great work. We do have great products but we still wouldn't be half our size without pushing the envelope on growth. Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth. Not photo tagging. Not news feed. Not messenger. Nothing.
In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what we believe. We have to justify the metrics and make sure they aren't losing out on a bigger picture. But connecting people. That's our imperative. Because that's what we do. We connect people.
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#429Every argument of the form "why would we piss off advertisers" or "why would we make our users unhappy" is void, because they are a monopoly. The mechanism that would make them responsive to customers is completely absent. Everyone hates Facebook, because it sucks. And everyone uses it, because it's a product with the most powerful network effect conceivable.
There is a way to have competition, and that is to create a standard for interoperability between competing social media platforms. In theory, the US government could legislate something like that, but in practice that's unthinkable.
So it has to come from Facebook itself. That's the only thing that could convince me that Facebook gives a shit about it's users. If you really think people are with Facebook because they like it, prove it. Let them leave. Give them the choice.
Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg
#430Earlier 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…
Very well put. When people say "it's always been like this" or "it's no different than X" – this is exactly the difference, and while fundamental human behaviors or impulses haven't changed, the design of the platform is changing how they are expressed.