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

461–470 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#461

Post by gremIin »

sircastor wrote: post #399
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…

I appreciate what you’re saying and agree with you, but I’m not confident that the US was ever not “whatever rich people shout out”.

Sure women couldn't vote and black people didn't have civil rights, but at least people were modest!

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#462

Post by ikr678 »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #433
wpietri wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

Depends if not causing harm to users was an executive KPI or not.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#464

Post by pcmoney »

etchalon wrote: post #420
angelzen wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

In what universe is "Data Protection" a "Ministry of Truth"?

This one. Just give it time.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#465

Post by mikevm »

ramraj07 wrote: post #128
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…

It’s like saying that the people working in the slaughter houses are actually kind folk who do like animals and care deeply for their well being. That can be absolutely true, but they still work for a slaughter house. Your care and trust doesn’t matter a bit because the fundamental nature of the organization is that it profits from cruelty. I understand it pays well, and that maybe they are trying to be nice and all,…

So a person who owns a farm with dogs as pets, chickens, and cattle (which he will slaughter at some point) is cruel? What a dumb analogy.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#466

Post by hans-moleman »

chillage wrote: post #112
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.

Honestly, agreed.. Well to start, Facebook is neither good or nor bad - it is not a person and does not have morality. The human mind is not really capable of dealing with an abstract entity such as a corporation so we anthropomorphize the large mess of people, software, and hardware presenting us a little app on our phones as imbued with a personality and morality. Then we debate whether this mess, which has Zuch's…

Your argument is the same as “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people”. It’s still something with potential to cause a great deal of harm and should be regulated.

> Why would Zuckerberg intentionally want to fail at this task and have people hate his company?

Nobody wants to fail at anything. Doesn’t stop people from failing all the time. Nobody wants to get fired but if you suck at your job you get fired all the same.

You’re approaching this way too logically without considering the social aspects. Stop trying to think like a robot.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#469

Post by reducesuffering »

josh_today wrote: post #13

This was my favorite: “If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place”

“We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.” What more could you want?
Post reply on HN