Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

611–620 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#611
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…

> America is a country ruled by the wealthy. Both by wealthy politicians and wealthy corporations.

As much as that statement is usually decried as "edgy teenage take", it's actually backed by political science [0]

[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#612
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…

Yes, thank you for pointing out what has been the fucking obvious to everybody outside of Dang's Den of Dangerous Dummies.

Your associates are easily duped marks. Facebooks pattern of incompetent negligence dates back to the first days of the company, and had never changed. Talk is cheap, lying to yourself is easy.

But when a company has spent 15 years showing us how little they care about people, at a systemic level, people should have caught on by now. Your associates have been too blinded by ego and money. It's pathetic and morally unforgivable.

As is Dang's moderation of this site. You're a bad human, Dang, and you associate with some of the worst.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

Quite a bit, then?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#615

> 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…

Because the rest of the world is behind the curve, the US is merely leading the charge as its established political landscape perfectly plays into the filter bubble polarization FB feeds on.

Something that's quite observable in places like Germany: Election campaigns in Germany used to be quite boring, there used to be no such thing as "political attack ads", parties kept their campaigning to topics they stand for, instead of trying to attack other parties or candidates on their particular positions.

At least that's how it used to be for the longest time, but during the last decade the whole tone around German elections became noticeably more hostile, something that directly correlates with the rise in popularity of the AfD.

Said AfD has hired American Harris Media for their campaign strategy, the same company that won Trump his presidency [0]. They not only introduced the wonders of micro-targeting, which already contributed to the Obama presidencies, but also added their American flavor of running political campaigns with these extremely hostile overtones.

The latest highlight of that escalation, during the recent election, has been far-right parties literally calling to "hang the Greens" [1]

Or to give another, often overlooked, example; The US wasn't the only country that saw their capitol stormed in recent times, an attempt was also made in Germany, but there police actually stood their ground [2]

And while most of the big established parties condemned what happened there, the rising far-right ones did nothing like that, they were right there riling people up.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-germa...

[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/german-court-orders-removal-of-...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53964147

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There absolutely are major questions about that. Most of the research and claims you see about bots manipulating people on social media fall apart when examined. For example they often rely on a badly trained ML model that labelled nearly half of Congress as "bots". This sort of thing is never admitted in the media - if you don't double check for yourself you'd never realize. Here's a talk that goes into a lot of det…

I was thinking most recently of Facebook's own internal reporting on the problem: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook...

That's a good example of the problem. Well, it's not about bots, but the same definitional and logic problems are evident. The story defines "troll farms" as "professionalized groups that work in a coordinated fashion to post provocative content, often propaganda, to social networks". That description is so vague it could describe almost all news outlets and political parties, along with many charities. But, they aren't going to classify CNN, PETA or the White House itself as a "troll farm" although it would be easy to argue otherwise.

Facebook obviously has big problems with internal activists who are trying to convince the company to pursue an ever-spiralling purge against their ideological enemies, and good evidence of that is the unfalsifiable nature of the descriptions of the enemy.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>conspiratorial thinking I wasn't aware there was any question that foreign groups (state supported or otherwise) actively coordinate on Facebook to influence US political campaigns.

There absolutely are major questions about that. Most of the research and claims you see about bots manipulating people on social media fall apart when examined. For example they often rely on a badly trained ML model that labelled nearly half of Congress as "bots". This sort of thing is never admitted in the media - if you don't double check for yourself you'd never realize. Here's a talk that goes into a lot of det…

Another version of this is extremely sloppy methodology where users are labeled "influencer bots" for merely having certain foreign IP ranges and being active in discussions about certain topics.

Twitter in particular has been banning tens of thousands of accounts based on that flimsy and circular reasoning.

And because the affected people are locked out of the only system, that would realistically allow them to draw attention to the problem, they are all out of luck in bringing attention to their situation and the problem.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#618
post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see it working. Instagram and WhatsApp should be spun off, absolutely no question about it. But Instagram and Facebook still remain way too big. And how do you break them up? By geographic area? People would be pissed because they have contacts with, or maybe want to watch vacation videos from people from different areas. IMHO the only options would be: * non-profit run by the UN or similar * forced to open a…

It's probably too late for any specific publicly traded company that already exists, but social media as a protocol, with forced interoperability if necessary, is the way to solve this. Many regional phone carriers doesn't prevent people from communicating across regions. Of course, it does cost more, so the question becomes who is willing and able to pay for a socially less harmful means of networking individuals wi…

> social media as a protocol, with forced interoperability if necessary, is the way to solve this

Hey, if they get that implemented for Facebook, maybe they can try to make it work with health care records too. Good luck with that...

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. > I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. > Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels. There is one person who controls all the constraints: Zuckerberg. He even went so far as to enforce that through his stock classifications. It’s entirely understandable and acceptable to have empa…

Zuckerberg is simply over his head and I think he knows it(I certainly wouldn't want to be in his shoes). I don't think he's evil I think he was enamored of this toy he built, he pushed it in very logical "business" directions, and now it's been adopted by so many people and its so big, its business model is having real world impact where I'm sure he'd prefer, from an intellectual perspective, that it acted totally p…

Nobody is forcing him to keep doing this. He’s waking up every day and making the choice to keep running FB today the same way he ran it yesterday. He could just quit

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#620
I haven’t seen any counterarguments to these two points he has raised.

> 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?

> Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I've written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.

Post reply on HN