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

Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#11

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

jchw wrote: post #3

Archive link: https://archive.is/hnBQa

I'm not complaining, but I'd like to point out that I think this violates HN's terms of service: "You agree to not use the Site to:

email or otherwise upload any content that (i) infringes any intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party;"

It seems like sharing a link to copyright infringing content (archive.is) could be considered Contributory copyright infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infring...)

By analogy, how is this so different from posting a link to a pirated movie originally from Netflix? Because it's text?

I think we have a case of normalization of deviance right here on HN. Illegal or stolen content is posted in the comments here all the time.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#12

Post by im_down_w_otp »

sneak wrote: post #7

I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…

Aren't their algorithms all designed to optimize for engagement? Isn't engagement just the measure of how much time you spend on and interacting with their system? Doesn't that mean that they're not deciding what to keep feeding us, but rather that we are?

It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were. We produce the clickbait, we click on the clickbait, then we get fed more and more of what we click on.

I tend to think that this probably boils down to rent-seeking via exploiting self-destructive human behavior/biology, so I'm not too fond of it for those reasons. But, that doesn't seem very much like Facebook censoring things as it does them feeding everyone exactly what people indicate to them with their clicks and comments they'd like to be fed.

I suppose there's an interesting discussion about what lengths companies like Facebook should go to save people from themselves, but to me they're basically another form of vice monetization like cigarettes, alcohol, etc.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#13

Post by ryandrake »

staticassertion wrote: post #10

I was just thinking the other day about what it must be like to work for Facebook on their security team (I'm in security myself). On an infosec team I have an idea of who the attackers are - there may be multiple, ranging from disgruntled employees to nation states. I think about their incentives, capabilities, and how to reduce risk. At Facebook... I'm working for the attacker. You're protecting users from some set…

Brave post! Seems whenever you imply on HN that developers should follow some code of ethics, and be held responsible for the ethical impact of the systems they make, people look at you like you have a horn growing out of your head. “But what if my manager TOLD me to write that evil code??” “Hey, I’m not making the requirements, I just implement them!” According to a lot of replies you will get, we are just helpless developer drones, with no say in what we are building.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#14

Post by [deleted] »

staticassertion wrote: post #10

I was just thinking the other day about what it must be like to work for Facebook on their security team (I'm in security myself). On an infosec team I have an idea of who the attackers are - there may be multiple, ranging from disgruntled employees to nation states. I think about their incentives, capabilities, and how to reduce risk. At Facebook... I'm working for the attacker. You're protecting users from some set…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#15

Post by jchw »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #11
jchw wrote: post #3

Archive link: https://archive.is/hnBQa

I'm not complaining, but I'd like to point out that I think this violates HN's terms of service: "You agree to not use the Site to: email or otherwise upload any content that (i) infringes any intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party;" It seems like sharing a link to copyright infringing content (archive.is) could be considered Contributory copyright infringement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Rules were made to be broken. In this case, dang themselves has commented on the matter[1]. Complaining about paywalls is off topic and discouraged, and linking archives is tolerated.

I disagree with your sentiment vehemently. Firstly, law is not morality; people break the law all the time, every day, at their own discretion. It was made by humans and is not infallible. Secondly, I can’t just do a few GET requests to Netflix and get the full movie, yet this archive.is scraper has no trouble. So I guess it wasn’t very protected to begin with.

The internet giveth, and the internet taketh away. They can get their better protection by not serving full articles publicly. They presumably do not because they would like to eat their cake and have it too with regards to indexing.

This is hugely off topic so apologies but there is a reasonable chance I am not replying beyond this point.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#16

Post by wyattpeak »

sneak wrote: post #7

I think the real problem is that a small set of companies are exercising control over what people see and read. Facebook's censorship (which includes algorithmic timelines, prioritizing some things and censoring others) is an existential danger to the wellbeing of our society. Any organization that can decide what links and text can be shared from neighbor to neighbor or from friend to friend is in a position of mass…

Is that really the problem? When in history did people get their news and information from a large and diverse set of sources?

For as long as there's been national news, it's been dominated by a few headline sources. Before that there were lots of local sources, but nobody was reading the local news from both Connecticut and Colorado.

I don't know what the difference is today. Maybe there isn't a difference, we just prioritise modern problems over the same problems in ages past. But I really don't think the answer is a narrowing of sources, unless your point of comparison is something like fifteen years ago, for the small subset of the population who were mostly getting their news online at that point.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#17

Post by madars »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #11
jchw wrote: post #3

Archive link: https://archive.is/hnBQa

I'm not complaining, but I'd like to point out that I think this violates HN's terms of service: "You agree to not use the Site to: email or otherwise upload any content that (i) infringes any intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party;" It seems like sharing a link to copyright infringing content (archive.is) could be considered Contributory copyright infringement ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Not sure what you mean here. Opening the original link in an incognito window yields full text of the article (maybe you are out of free articles, and they are counting?) Submitting articles to archive.is or archive.org serves the important function of maintaining an accurate historical record, and prevent link rot.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#18

Post by justapassenger »

ryandrake wrote: post #13
staticassertion wrote: post #10

I was just thinking the other day about what it must be like to work for Facebook on their security team (I'm in security myself). On an infosec team I have an idea of who the attackers are - there may be multiple, ranging from disgruntled employees to nation states. I think about their incentives, capabilities, and how to reduce risk. At Facebook... I'm working for the attacker. You're protecting users from some set…

Brave post! Seems whenever you imply on HN that developers should follow some code of ethics, and be held responsible for the ethical impact of the systems they make, people look at you like you have a horn growing out of your head. “But what if my manager TOLD me to write that evil code??” “Hey, I’m not making the requirements, I just implement them!” According to a lot of replies you will get, we are just helpless…

> Brave post!

Not commenting on op’s point, but let’s be honest - saying that Facebook is evil on HN is as brave as saying that Fox News is evil on CNN.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#19

Post by op03 »

Problem solving in NASA is a very different story compared to problem solving at Facebook.

NASA hires rocket scientists to build rockets. Enough talent existed in the military working on that stuff, even before anyone started day dreaming of flying to space.

Facebook on the other hand hires computer scientists, programmers and an assortment of random over-energetic mindlessly ambitious buffoons (too ignorant to fully comprehend how ignorant they are outside their domain) to work on Sociology, Political Science and Social Psych problems.

What solutions can anyone expect?

Many of said created problems are barely studied by domain experts at such scales.

So expect solutions to always be half baked and create their own new issues for a long time, before any real breakthroughs happen. Its like waiting for Meteorologists to announce they have finally worked out how to control the path of hurricanes.

Ofcourse the difference here is Meteorologists dont create and inject chaos into society. Facebook does and is well rewarded for it.

Its high time they are punished.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#20

Post by staticassertion »

justapassenger wrote: post #18
ryandrake wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave post! Seems whenever you imply on HN that developers should follow some code of ethics, and be held responsible for the ethical impact of the systems they make, people look at you like you have a horn growing out of your head. “But what if my manager TOLD me to write that evil code??” “Hey, I’m not making the requirements, I just implement them!” According to a lot of replies you will get, we are just helpless…

> Brave post! Not commenting on op’s point, but let’s be honest - saying that Facebook is evil on HN is as brave as saying that Fox News is evil on CNN.

I think they mean less of the "Facebook is evil" and more of the idea of any kind of regulation or personal responsibility/liability with regards to tech workers.
Post reply on HN