Facebook's “see no evil” strategy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#111

Post by scarecrowbob » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:12 PM UTC

thereisnospork wrote: post #27

hammock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my moral value is based on what I read? If I read the wrong thing I might as well be second-class citizen?

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

But that's -not- trivially true.

My politics are idiosyncratic and lean far enough to the left that I have a hard time explaining them to my centrist liberal friends.

At the same time, I read a lot of far-right sources; I do not find them at all compelling, but in addition to the fact that I like to know what the people who think I am a literal baby-blood-drinking demon might be up to, I have an MA in rhetoric and find the discourse to be as engaging as stuff like William Burroughs or The Illuminatus Trilogy...

And I am not alone in that. You simply can't divine much of anything based on their search history and reading list, and that's made even more difficult by the compartmentalization that some of us are using in0-browser to work against tracking.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#112

Post by cmrdporcupine » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #110

user-the-name wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Well, they're the position of the most vocal and nutty segment of the right wing. Trying to paint the entire right with it is dishonest (whether accidentally or deliberately). I will admit that the nutty ones get all the media attention at the moment. (You can decide whether or not you believe that's the media trying to paint the entire right that way...)

They're not only getting all the media attention at the moment but they are holding all the power in the GOP at the moment. Especially in places like Florida.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#113

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

stouset wrote: post #102

war1025 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith. I'm being downvoted because some subset of people here view down vote as "I disagree". I used to be bothered by it. I don't think much about it anymore. Edit: I'm also fairly certain I've got some followers who take it upon themselves to go through my comment history and start downvoting other posts of mine just for good…

I downvoted you. Not because I disagree, but because I too believe your arguments are in bad faith and/or misrepresenting the positions of those you disagree with. > It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that…

> Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into vaccination against their will.

Just this week, Biden was talking about having people go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot. Arizona publicly told him to get bent - they weren't going to do that in their state.

So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too close for my taste. I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine with the state sending people door to door to push those who were pregnant to carry to term.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#114

Post by Gunax » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

zohch wrote: post #46

What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to not see? And how would making reach data available make it easier for Facebook to see evil? Or if Facebook is trying to hide the evil, what evil is it they are trying to hide? What will the reach data reveal that is so evil? And if the evil is manifest without reach data, why does it matter?

To understand the argument that 'facebook is evil' requires more context than what is explicitly stated in this article. It's more of a followup or continuation of a long running thread.

Basically there is a long thread about Facebook being a haven for the worst qualities of human discussion: insular, xenophobic, and reactionary. This started to get really big during the Cambridge analytica scandel but has continued from there.

In short the argument is that Facebook knowingly allows the aforementioned culture to manifest. In many parts of the world, this has resulted in real world consequences and deaths. That they refuse to divulge the most popular articles is, in this authors mind, a sort of coverup.

Personally I don't fully agree with this assessment. As facebook has become more and more of 'the web', replacing the distributed forums and chatrooms that once dominated, it's also become a reflection of us. Facebook is in a bind no matter what it does--it's either guilty of censorship or misinformation.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#115

Post by webinvest » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

the_optimist wrote: post #66

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are (perhaps intentionally) confusing correlation and causation. You're also trying to transform a conversation about predicting stupidity, gullibility, and superstition into a conversation about whether some people are more valuable than others because the latter argument is easier to win.

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated…

The answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals.

It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness to get Trump into the White House —- and the Democrats who were still using weak user-data like race & ethnicity said hey that’s not fair! Essentially some researchers at Cambridge had a large number of participants take a personality test and click a button to share their FB account data. The personality test measured 5 traits:

1) Openness

2) Conscientiousness

3) Extroversion

4) Agreeableness

5) Neuroticism

Now based on our large sample size of personality test takers, we can correlate that you or this Facebook user you’re studying has the following 5 personality traits and they probably have the following oddly-specific likes: ex: Anime, Lil Wayne, popping bubble wrap, Frosted Mini Wheats, AK47s, anal sex, cheap beer, and the sweet smell of air right before it rains.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#116

Post by war1025 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #104

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the…

>> The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete. > That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over…

> IMHO, I think a flag-waving socially-conservative socialism could be surprisingly successful in America, if someone could get it off the ground.

I think that's basically Trump's base to be honest. Politicians just haven't figured out how to wrangle them into something useful.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#117

Post by CobrastanJorji » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

webinvest wrote: post #115

the_optimist wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated…

The answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness…

This is interesting, and I'd love to learn more about your experience using it and what you were using it for.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#118

Post by the_optimist » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

webinvest wrote: post #115

the_optimist wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, based on telemetry data? Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" are associated…

The answer to your question can be found by researching the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I wouldn’t call it a scandal but I’d describe it as being open to researchers and the general public, enormously powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after Steve Bannon’s team of smart political researchers used it with a high degree of effectiveness…

You certainly didn't answer what's causal, nor capture concepts such "terrifyingly stupid."

Given substantial experience in data analytics, I also don't believe in the slightest that Bannon's crack team identified all the open-minded mini-wheaters and rode that analysis to victory. That's absurd on its face but probably sounds amazing to clueless people.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#119

Post by varelse » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #69

thereisnospork wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, and pro 'life', for instance

This kind of thinking completely discards the concept of intent. People read things for all kinds of reasons. I have a family member who was an avid reader of the "Weekly World News", yet he did not believe in aliens, "Bat Boy", or the illuminati. I used to regularly read conservative blogs and listen to Fox News to keep up with what people I disagree with are doing/saying. So the problem is that you can make some st…

You're using outliers to invalidate far more accurate predictions of the ensemble. You're right about people like yourself. IMO they are not the norm. Most "Weekly World News" readers are, I suspect, far more gullible than you. And far more Fox News viewers agree with their talking points and agenda than disagree or they wouldn't be watching, also IMO.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#120

Post by bronzeage » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #89

war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the…

[dead]