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

It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#141

Post by Amezarak »

ModernMech wrote: post #129
Amezarak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How long and often" people engage with content is a perfectly reasonable metric to optimize and a very close correlate of interest. There are, in fact, plenty of things going on in the world people should get mad about, or that they should worry about. Some people think that's climate change, some people think that's migration, some people think that's rising fascism, some people think that's Mamdami opening grocery…

None of that addresses whether Facebook is intentionally trying to sow discord and make people depressed and anxious for profit.

OK, so, in the vein of the original thread, can you explain how Facebook would be "sowing discord" or "making people depressed and anxious" in some specific way that isn't just spreading other people's speech (ideally, in a way that is based on some objective metrics like engagement) that is Very Bad and shouldn't be allowed?

For example, are you suggesting that Facebook begin censoring information about the climate emergency because it makes people depressed and anxious? Should Facebook make sure that people don't see content they disagree with, because that promotes discord? Or is it the other way around - they shouldn't see content they agree with, because that creates an echo chamber which increases discord when they do encounter other views?

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#142

Post by _ink_ »

Amezarak wrote: post #141
ModernMech wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that addresses whether Facebook is intentionally trying to sow discord and make people depressed and anxious for profit.

OK, so, in the vein of the original thread, can you explain how Facebook would be "sowing discord" or "making people depressed and anxious" in some specific way that isn't just spreading other people's speech (ideally, in a way that is based on some objective metrics like engagement) that is Very Bad and shouldn't be allowed? For example, are you suggesting that Facebook begin censoring information about the climate…

There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying.

To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what they show and not the users. And if their business model is then not working anymore, because it's to expensive to moderate the content, then tough luck.

[1] - https://dietagespresse.com/selbstversuch-so-radikalisiert-ti...

It's in German but you can watch the feeds.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#143

Post by watwut »

TFNA wrote: post #140
watwut wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I can read a crime novel and read that last pope writing (got curious took spanish version, no dictionary cause it is printed version). I can watch some netflix shows with no subtitles at all - Seinfield, crime shows, documentaries, that sort of thing. I cant watch stuff with more complicated vocabulary ("you" or "the good place" are harder). I listen to spanish radio - causual shows about world news o…

You seem to think of language learning only as learning for passive media consumption, and the plethora of mistakes in your English rather underscores that. Most people learning a language want more than that, e.g. being able to achieve at least a B1 level in all categories for social, job, or residence-permit/citizenship test reasons. And for those masses, Duolingo is a shit way to learn.

1.) What most people want is not relevant here. Ability to consume media is an undeniable proof that I did in fact learned a lot. The exact order in which I learn things is not important, result is real world skill I gained.

2.) You do not know what most people want. You are making a wild guess, based on nothing. You know even less about what most people attracted to Duolingo want.

3.) Most people who need to learn foreign language for school or work reason still dislike language learning. Most people find it both boring and draining. A tool that makes it not sux is a big deal for those people too.

4.) You suggested textbooks. You will NOT pass B1 test with textbooks only. You will have serious issues with listening comprehension. Even if you are that unusual kind of person that will persist learning alone from textbook.

5.) You can pass B1 test with Duolingo only. That is not something unusual or exceptional, it actually gives you everything you need for that particular formal test. B1 is not that high.

6.) People who learn from comprehensible input only/primary are also able to pass B1 tests.

8.) A lot of passive media consumption is necessary for learning foreign language. No matter whether you use textbook or Duolingo or comprehensible input, consuming media is the core part of it all.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#144

Post by Amezarak »

_ink_ wrote: post #142
Amezarak wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so, in the vein of the original thread, can you explain how Facebook would be "sowing discord" or "making people depressed and anxious" in some specific way that isn't just spreading other people's speech (ideally, in a way that is based on some objective metrics like engagement) that is Very Bad and shouldn't be allowed? For example, are you suggesting that Facebook begin censoring information about the climate…

There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying. To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what t…

OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#145

Post by ModernMech »

Amezarak wrote: post #144
_ink_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying. To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what t…

OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#146

Post by Amezarak »

ModernMech wrote: post #145
Amezarak wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed?

That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public harmony, not liberalism.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#147

Post by _ink_ »

Amezarak wrote: post #144
_ink_ wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an experiment (granted its TikTok, but it's basically the same) where they register a new account, pretending to be a teenager and than start scrolling without liking anything. [1] The amount of extremist content that is shown is really worrying. To answer your question, yes they should be highly regulated and forced to moderate what they show to users. Maybe even be liable since it is their decision what t…

OK, well, I support liberal democracy and all that entails. So we’re kind of fundamentally at odds here and probably won’t be able to find common ground.

That's ok. Thank you for the discussion. But I do wonder, should Russia and China be allowed to use these tools to sow distrust against our Democracy? For me the tolerance paradox formulated by Karl Popper comes to mind and it is a clear no.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#148

Post by _ink_ »

Amezarak wrote: post #146
ModernMech wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public har…

Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#149

Post by ModernMech »

Amezarak wrote: post #146
ModernMech wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy does not imply that people should be allowed intentionally make people depressed and anxious for profit. There's no reason that must be allowed for a healthy democracy to work.

Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public har…

We're not talking about the government and authorities, we're talking about Facebook. The government showing people information that makes them anxious and depressed isn't the same as a for-profit entity intentionally tailoring individual feeds to maximize people's specific anxieties and depression because they discovered it generates billions of dollars, allowing their executives to live in opulent luxury floating on mega yachts. That whole thing isn't a part of liberal democracy.

Re: It's time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign from Meta

#150

Post by Amezarak »

_ink_ wrote: post #148
Amezarak wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberal democracy does not mean that the government and other authorities hide information and opinions from people for fear it might make them “anxious and depressed.” I gave you a specific example: should they stop letting people see content relating to the climate emergency because it makes many people anxious and depressed? That is the view of paternalistic authoritarian states whose primary concern is public har…

Content that speaks the truth, like content about the climate emergency is not the problem, even if people don't want that to be true. The content that are just blatant lies, nowadays even published by elected officials, that they just publish because it is in their own personal and financial interest is.

Right. So instead, a central authority determines what is true or not and therefore what is allowed to be published. Easy - there’s clearly a neutral arbiter of truth we can all depend on! So the problem was never that the algorithm let people see content that was depressing and anxiety-inducing - that’s okay - but when it does so and it’s not true. How the goalposts move.

You’re right back to what authoritarian states say and do, and diametrically opposed to what underpins liberal democracy: the idea that the demos decides what is true and good. That idea has lots of very obvious problems but we decided it was preferable to the other systems, one of which you are now advocating for. In a liberal democracy we all are responsible for persuading the people that lies are lies, not censoring them.

If you believe that the Algorithm is just too powerful and you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas against people lying - well, you don’t believe in liberal democracy. You believe in an ideologically authoritarian state that tells you what’s true or not, and where people are not allowed to make free, (un)informed decisions.

Post reply on HN