Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 269 posts

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#181

Post by junon »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #75
ghaff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define social networks? Should email mailing lists not exist either because those are absolutely social networks in a way as were BBS systems?

While I agree that it's a sticky problem, I think we can find a middle ground between "email mailing list" and "site dedicated to maximizing engagement by both encouraging the spread of rage baiting misinformation and deliberately maximizing the number of people who see it".

Yep, this is my point summed up pretty well. SMS can be seen as a "social network" if you really squint your eyes - clearly I'm not talking about BBS/forum software/etc.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#182

Post by piggybox »

kolmogorov wrote: post #145
lowkey_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm merely clarifying HN's common opinion. As for the whistleblower, I'm very skeptical of her — to be a tech PM against encryption, and somehow linking e2e encryption to making the platform less safe, is dubious at best. Removing misinformation and calls to violence on the Facebook platform doesn't need to include monitoring private messages. The idea that she's been a PM at large tech companies for 15 years and doe…

How do these two align? Why would FB sending messages that are sent encrypted (not e2e) and stored on US servers allow China to read messages? If you allege hacking then why wouldn’t they be able to hack the devices? Re misinformation: why would misinformation not simply happen in e2e group chats like it is already happening in e.g. Brazil or India? What’s the difference between posting to a group of friends on Faceb…

The idea is once a company has some power over its users, that power will be used by some government somewhere as well. The latest example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/russia-naval...

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#183

Post by tayistay »

alex_young wrote: post #171

There’s a genuine moral dilemma here isn’t there? Imagine for a moment that we are debating what a company should do with a chalkboard in a public square. People keep writing things on it organizing racially motivated killings, etc. The company has implemented a technology which allows people to write things on it without anyone being able to see who posted what or when. If the company does nothing it will surely lea…

Bad analogy. Facebook has an algorithm which promotes posts that drive engagement, which is often extremist stuff. Just regulating that (as Haugen suggests) would improve things.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#184

Post by bostonsre »

Kalium wrote: post #144
bostonsre wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a world made of spectrums where we must balance opposing desires. We cannot have prosperity without security (in the law enforcement sense) and we cannot have freedom with absolute security but we make compromises to try to find a balance between those opposing forces. It is an incredibly hard problem to solve but I don't really know where that perfect balance is and I'm not sure anyone knows. I don't want…

You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and educated individual. Perhaps you might find it interesting to read up on the history of attempts to pursue the precise balance you suggest is desirable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip If you seek numbers, the FBI invites you to inspect their data: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr As you correctly and wisely say, the world is full of hard problems with man…

Yes, I absolutely think that finding that balance is usually a case of finding the unhappy minimum and not about finding a spot where everyone is happy.

> Do you think there might be cases, in the fullness of the human experience, where one set of extremists on an issue are right, their opposite numbers are wrong, and any balance between them also wrong?

Yes, I think there probably are cases where something like this happens but I would assume those cases would be a little less debatable. But yes, what you say makes a lot of sense and is probably a large part of the reason the current political climate is so tribal.

> Perhaps we should stop, take a step back, and examine our biases?

If you are talking about the current case though, what is the false premise or what are the biases?

There are indeed monsters out there that hurt women and children and use technology to accomplish those crimes. They are not made up bogey men. They flock to technology that provides them cover and punishments for crimes deter criminals from attempting those crimes. If criminals did not have to fear punishments, more crimes would happen. I certainly would speed more if I didn't have to worry about speeding tickets.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#185

Post by tayistay »

fareesh wrote: post #6

On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. The fact that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are treated the way they are (and the earlier treatment of Manning) gives the US government zero credibility on press freedom,…

How smug. Do you actually think that your government, whatever that is, would just welcome someone who rightly divulged government secrets?

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#186

Post by jollybean »

pfraze wrote: post #159
jollybean wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook pissed off people by having power. The power to control the narrative (or take it away from others by virtue of giving yahoos in their basement, or regular people, a huge voice) is the real power, and the elite are really scared of that. I don't mean that to sound globalist/conspiracist, but it's effectively what's going on here. Mostly from the centre to far left (FYI not being political here, this has noth…

I was a bit overwhelmed by your Wall of Text (tm) at first, but I decided to check your comment history and figured, yeah okay let me dig in, and I think you made some interesting points. Here are my thoughts... > Note the Machiavellian manner in which it is framed i.e. this is a 'Facebook' problem, when in reality, it's not Zuck out there making the rules so much as it's people on FB having a voice. I agree that Fac…

Those are good points, however, I think that putting it in the context of 'values of the internet' is a bit too academic.

I don't think this is rhetorical or intellectual issue.

Some groups are losing power and they are scrambling, that's most of the story.

FB doesn't really have a monopoly, I think Zuck just made it easy for people to have their own 'pages' on the net, and the resulting unmitigated chaos is the result of it, and the elites don't like that.

I failed to mention as well - the government I believe is using this to push for more regulation and control. For better or for worse.

I don't see this as a hugely principled fight. I mean - in some forums it's framed that way, but not in the corridors of power.

If it were, I think the discussions would be more nuanced. For all of the yelling and hype, what I do not see are attempts to take an objective assessment of the situation, while offering a bunch of solutions with apparent tradeoffs etc..

This is a very tricky issue.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#187

Post by cabalamat »

Shish2k wrote: post #176
oceanplexian wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about (3) Less consolidation of power Personally as someone who doesn't use FB and never will, I couldn't care less if Facebook wants to track and monitor every one of their users, monetize their every movement, and ban any message they want. In a free market you'd have thousands of social networks to provide competition with all sorts of different policies and ToS. The real issue is that one company is in a skew…

How would thousands of competing networks deal with a government-enforced “no E2EE; wiretapping API required” law?

Badly, and that's the point.

I'd like social media to be run by everyone having a social media server linked to their home network (imagine something like a Raspberry Pi), with it being totally decentralised and every user controlling their own server.

Then if the government wants to shut it down, they have to raid everyone's home.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#188

Post by fareesh »

boringg wrote: post #81
helen___keller wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. A…

Exactly. OP clearly has an agenda (though all over the map in their comments). Clinton has no relation to this whatsoever. Maybe too much consuming of right wing media.

Just so I understand your claim:

My agenda is that I am advocating for the rights of Julian Assange - who exposed various embarassing government secrets for the Bush administration...

.. and simultaneously my agenda is also that I am advocating against Hillary Clinton, the political opponent of George W Bush?

Our local Indian news channel NDTV (which leans left) released a story in 2016 about Hillary Clinton asking her housekeeper Marina Santos to print out classified information. The US Government has no problem with this. I don't think that the housekeeper having access to classified information is in the public's best interests. I do think that the releases made by Assange and Snowden are in the public interest. But the US government has a problem with this.

This is the double standard that I am highlighting - the US government (regardless of who is running it) is demonstrably and fairly consistently at odds with what is in the best interests of the public when it comes to privacy, social media, etc. etc.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#189

Post by fareesh »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26
fareesh wrote: post #6

On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. The fact that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are treated the way they are (and the earlier treatment of Manning) gives the US government zero credibility on press freedom,…

On one hand are whistleblowers to the American public against the U.S. government. On the other hand, a whistleblower to the American public and U.S. government. Not sure why one would expect them to be received similarly.

Would the judiciary (branch of government) consider Haugen to be in violation of any NDAs that she had with Facebook?

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#190

Post by pfraze »

jollybean wrote: post #186
pfraze wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a bit overwhelmed by your Wall of Text (tm) at first, but I decided to check your comment history and figured, yeah okay let me dig in, and I think you made some interesting points. Here are my thoughts... > Note the Machiavellian manner in which it is framed i.e. this is a 'Facebook' problem, when in reality, it's not Zuck out there making the rules so much as it's people on FB having a voice. I agree that Fac…

Those are good points, however, I think that putting it in the context of 'values of the internet' is a bit too academic. I don't think this is rhetorical or intellectual issue. Some groups are losing power and they are scrambling, that's most of the story. FB doesn't really have a monopoly, I think Zuck just made it easy for people to have their own 'pages' on the net, and the resulting unmitigated chaos is the resu…

It is a tricky issue, and you might be right. It's also very hard to parse when a conversation goes this mainstream what the true essence of it is. I mean, basically all topics lose nuance when they go this mainstream.

I think we (mostly) agree on the grievances I listed? But I think your point is that the fight has - at least - evolved into a power battle that's beyond what I'm talking about, and I can't disagree with that.

Post reply on HN