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

481–490 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#481

Post by fortuna86 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #342
skizm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m with you. Facebook brings way more good to the world than bad. And the bad it brings is just amplification of what already exists. And with the Internet that amplification will happen with or without facebook. Also the fact that much of the research / “leaks” are showing most of the issues are only happening in the US is a sort of a glaring hole in most of the arguments being made against FB. The US is just borke…

Most people completely have their head in the sand about how utterly awful the average person is. A massive chunk of what people complain about is simply attributable to the fact that people are monsters, and that global connectivity means we can now all talk to each other without distribution being tightly bottlenecked and controlled (eg publishers, broadcasters, radio, etc). There's little that Facebook is accused…

Facebook tried to go with "we're not bad, the people are" a while back. Yeah people are bad, but if you provide the tools for them to organize and further radicalize, you are responsible for what comes next.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#482

Post by haser_au »

Ansil849 wrote: post #458
asdff wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Most of the presidents from the last century were not born into wealth. Whether or not they were born into wealth is irrelevant to my claim, which is: > Politicians in America are traditionally wealthy people. Of the 17 presidents from the last century, only three (and just nine total) are listed as having a net worth of less than one million: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit... America…

> Of the 17 presidents from the last century, only three (and just nine total) are listed as having a net worth of less than one million

You might want to quote the sentence at the top of the Wikipedia table in your link, that says this is their "peak net worth" and "may occur after that president has left office".

Read through the list in the link below. McKinley, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Obama and Biden can't be considered to have been born into families of wealth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/11/05/the-net-wort... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Early_life_(1942%E2%...

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#483

Post by fortuna86 »

fedbook wrote: post #52
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.

They do a lot of good bringing people together, but it’s a double edged sword with massive potential for abuse. It’s not up for debate that Facebook causes harm. The only question is how much is too much? At what point do we step in, tell them their mitigations are ineffective, and break up or regulate their systems?

> They do a lot of good bringing people together

A messenger app brings people together. Such an app doesn't need an algorithmic feed to hook people on junk/harmful content. That was added for one reason, money.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#485

Post by drstewart »

dudul wrote: post #291
m4rtink wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how many alternative systems and services people could use to keep touch with their loved ones Facebook steamrolledby network effect and questionable business practices. Services that might not require you to expose your real identity to the whole internet, that might not exfiltrate your full contact list from your phone or would not apply questionable morals and censorship on the content you exchange…

Email, video calls, photo sharing services, etc. My parents ans I live on different continents and we still manage to speak regularly, share pictures, etc. All of that without any of us having a Facebook account.

All of which have enabled many abuses such as financial fraud, terrorists being able to communicate, pedophiles sharing pictures, etc. Ban phones and email. They're too dangerous.

I can manage fine by seeing friends and family in person. If you can't, maybe you just don't care enough?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#486

Post by throwaway2048 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #441
Dracophoenix wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Follow the money

Yep, ask yourself how much identifiable return "preventing abuse" has, and then you have your answer for exactly how much these companies actually care about it.

Even worse, preventing abuse and other social media ills often lessens engagement, and you know what that means.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#488

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

grandmczeb wrote: post #334
bogwog wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a link to the actual findings of the study? I feel like that statement is cherry picking, and without context there's not much weight to it. The ultimate issue here (unless I'm misunderstanding the controversy) is about whether Facebook decided to act on the findings of the study which showed Facebook/Instagram was causing harm to teenagers. This sentence from Zuckerberg seems to be disputing the findings of…

> Is there a link to the actual findings of the study? https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/research-teen-well-being-a... > I feel like that statement is cherry picking, and without context there's not much weight to it. How can you form an option about whether it’s cherry picking if you’re unaware of the context?

As I understand it, the decks linked there are altered post-controversy. I think there are wsj links to the original decks that are more damning.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#489

Post by pmp11pmp »

zestyping wrote: post #127
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…

This is exactly the point Frances Haugen is making, and it's why this is so different and so much more significant than the other Facebook scandals and leaks in the past. Haugen repeated over and over again her testimony today that Facebook is full of smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people, and that she has great empathy for them, even Mark Zuckerberg. Her point is that they have created a system of incenti…

Incidentally, that's also a good explanation of things that appear to be conspiracies.
Post reply on HN