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

431–440 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#431

Post by systemvoltage »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #422
systemvoltage wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve not seen what you’re describing on HN.

The point is that moderate comments that are slightly challenging mass ideology are downvoted on HN. That clearly and factually didn’t used to be the case as I’ve shown in 2016.

It’s sad.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#432

Post by asdff »

wpietri wrote: post #173
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. But no one can see the forest from the trees. Ah, this is what I think of as Schrodinger's Accountability. Zuckerberg and Facebook's senior execs are simultaneously: A) so brilliant for running Facebook that they deserve to be incredibly rich, and B) so normal that they can't possibly be expected to understand the consequences of their a…

What does breaking up a company actually do for the consumer? I don't think telecoms are any better for the consumer decades after we broke Bell. There is strong incentive to just form a cartel like telecoms today rather than a competitive environment that is beneficial for the consumer.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#433

Post by Dracophoenix »

wpietri wrote: post #138
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…

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 presume the same was true about the senior execs. They were aware Twitter was causing harm to people. If they wanted to know the details, we had plenty of research and they could have ordered more. Did they care? Impossible to know. But what they focused on was growth and revenue. Abuse was a big deal internally only as long as it was a big deal in the press.

Could this just be an issue of too many problems to care about and not enough time to solve them all or do you think the indifference was intentional?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#434

Post by throwaway09223 »

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…

"the outrage would go away"

If there's one thing I've learned it's that the outrage never goes away. The type of people who fixate on outrage in their Facebook feeds are the same type of people who decades prior would cruise around town picking fights in person. I'm unconvinced that Facebook is meaningfully changing this dynamic.

I'm also unconvinced that the filter bubble is meaningfully different than what's come before. Humans have been sorting themselves into like-minded communities since before we could read and write. Do you remember the hive-minds of the 80s and 90s? If anything they were far more extreme because of the difficulty in proving anything, back before google and wikipedia. There was a lot more extremism and hate based violence back then. A LOT, LOT more, and no interventions like Facebook is at least attempting to provide.

Facebook has some new angles on old patterns in human behavior, yes. I think the people who're trying to show that it's made things work have a lot of work to do to make a compelling case. Facebook's biggest transgression is probably that it has chronicled this behavior and has dragged it into the light.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#435

Post by asdff »

Ansil849 wrote: post #390
kumarvvr wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sick of billionaires with megaphones blaring their virtues As a society, the US has shifted its values from intellectually sound principles, to what ever rich people shout out. I vomit in my mouth when I see videos of people showing currency, of people talking to you about "doing the hustle", etc etc. US has fallen into an abyss of moral decline, where the value of your words are directly proportional to the am…

> As a society, the US has shifted its values from intellectually sound principles, to what ever rich people shout out. When has this not been the case? Politicians in America are traditionally wealthy people.

Most of the presidents from the last century were not born into wealth.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#436

Post by danbolt »

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…

Given the late 1800s and early 1900s US were also very polarized, part of me wonders if the post-Cold-War world is returning to some sort of polarized state. It can feel like there are a lot of different perspectives on the way things should be, and thus there's less certainty where to go.

That said, I'm not a historian so take my shower thoughts with a teaspoon of salt.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#437

Post by Cd00d »

mc32 wrote: post #335
throwaway-19283 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happened at a company I was at. Hyper-growth startup, huge aura around it. A few high-level folks arrived whose perfection in smooth talking was rivaled only by their enjoyment of wreaking havoc on teams & relationships. They brought in their friends, paranoia and rumors spread, culture went off a cliff, CEO was confused what happened. Mass exodus followed.

How do you filter against hiring these types given their talking and schmoozing get them over the HR guard as well as director and above interviewers?

I don't like letting people bring their own teams with them. It's a shortcut to a discontinuation of culture and a form of second-order nepotism.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#438

Post by marton78 »

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…

The premise of this argument is false. In Germany, where I live, polarization has increased dramatically, especially since COVID. I don't know about Facebook, but the tone on Twitter is harsh, the hate is palpable. The difference is maybe that unlike in the States it's not a 50:50 split, but maybe 80:20.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#439

Post by encryptluks2 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #431
encryptluks2 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve not seen what you’re describing on HN. The point is that moderate comments that are slightly challenging mass ideology are downvoted on HN. That clearly and factually didn’t used to be the case as I’ve shown in 2016. It’s sad.

They are downvoted for the reason I just stated. Why would you upvote someone you believe is opposed to your entire existence based on what political party they associated with?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#440

Post by ehnto »

imgabe wrote: post #372
djabatt wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "lean in" people and incentives have made society suffer for profit. Perhaps we can define a better set of incentives that reward companies of people building products.

We can. It's called pay directly for the services you use. It is a time-honored system where you give providers money in exchange for goods and services. In response, their incentive is to keep you happy and healthy and prosperous so you can continue to give them money.

Which will never happen. That takes customer impetus, it's not there. People don't understand the cost of the free products they use, they are unlikely to switch.

So what ways would influence your outcome to actually happen? Because I think it would be the right way to run software platforms as well, I just don't see a pathway there that isn't heavy handed.

I would be for regulating the advertising industry, since I feel it is the root of all this. None of the unethical software magnates would exist if not for the advertising dollars pouring through the door thanks to the ad-tech apparatuses they have built, and the poor incentives that creates. But that regulation is challenging and unlikely too.

Post reply on HN