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

Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 254 posts

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#141

Post by fleddr »

mullingitover wrote: post #57
potatolicious wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: - "tech has a causal effect on society" - "society has a causal effect on tech, tech is a mirror" At this point it seems pretty patently obvious that the reality is both ? Technology is subject to pre-existing flaws in society, but also has the capability to amplify and worsen it. > the popularity of th…

> Yeah, FB didn't invent partisanship, misinformation, nor authoritarianism, but I think likely it is worsening it. Absolutely, Zuckerberg is basically a younger, less human version of Rupert Murdoch. He's going where the money takes him, and he's happy to exploit a profitable niche. My point though is that it's increasingly clear that Facebook's audience is becoming just that, an aging niche, and that's not a great…

"My point though is that it's increasingly clear that Facebook's audience is becoming just that, an aging niche, and that's not a great place to be for a social media platform"

A few counter points can be made here.

Yours is a very US centric view. As one example, in several Central and South American countries, Facebook is everything. It's where everybody is, and this weird western idea that mingling with old people is "not cool" isn't a thing there.

Facebook is nearing 3 billion ACTIVE users. Astonishing to call that a niche. It isn't shrinking or stagnating, it keeps growing.

Last, the obsession with non-teenage users somehow being the death of a social network is ridiculous. Most people in this world are not teenagers. Adults have all the money, and all the political money.

Who cares what teenagers think is cool? Teenagers are idiots and they don't have any money. They aren't going to grow up in your service, they'll dump it within 2 years.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#142

Post by mlindner »

ALittleLight wrote: post #139

Facebook at least claims to be a leader in scanning for and detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platform. As a result of their diligence and size Facebook reports a lot ~90+% of all CSAM reports[1]. That fact suggests that Facebook really is better than most when it comes to detecting CSAM because there is nothing inherent to Facebook that would make it a more appealing platform for CSAM than pornog…

Your post seems to imply that end to end encryption is bad and that we need a surveillance state run either by corporations or government in order to protect children.

We need to not head down this path.

Protecting children has always historically been led by their own parents and we should empower that. Improvements should always be about parental education (teaching parents to recognize the signs of abuse/grooming before abuse) and cultural education (teaching about the harms of sexual abuse so that potential offenders don't act). Contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles are not actually psychopaths and actually have consciences and if they see the damage that their actions could cause, they're less likely to act and more likely to find non-damaging outlets for their urges (simulated or drawn material, as two examples).

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#143

Post by throwitaway1235 »

user-the-name wrote: post #109
throwitaway1235 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You call opinions you disagree with lies.

Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.

Calling the vandalism that took place on 1/6 at the capital an insurrection, is a grotesque lie.

Do me a favor. Call it an insurrection so I can call you a liar.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#144

Post by ALittleLight »

mlindner wrote: post #142
ALittleLight wrote: post #139

Facebook at least claims to be a leader in scanning for and detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platform. As a result of their diligence and size Facebook reports a lot ~90+% of all CSAM reports[1]. That fact suggests that Facebook really is better than most when it comes to detecting CSAM because there is nothing inherent to Facebook that would make it a more appealing platform for CSAM than pornog…

Your post seems to imply that end to end encryption is bad and that we need a surveillance state run either by corporations or government in order to protect children. We need to not head down this path. Protecting children has always historically been led by their own parents and we should empower that. Improvements should always be about parental education (teaching parents to recognize the signs of abuse/grooming…

Facebook reports ~20 million instances of child sexual abuse materials a year. My understanding is that this material is largely transmitted by message (i.e. people aren't posting it on their wall, but sharing it in chat). Regardless of your ideological convictions, the fact remains that one trade off of end to end encryption is a reduction in ability to detect, track, and report CSAM.

My intuition is that our current trajectory will lead us to a "worst of all worlds" case where governments continue to spy on and suppress people by subverting end to end encryption at some level, but pedophiles will trade their material with impunity. Ideally, I would like to find the opposite compromise, where we could detect and catch criminals while maintaining privacy. This has been attempted by law, due process, warrants, and such - but that attempt is subverted by the government not following the law.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#145

Post by lovemenot »

user-the-name wrote: post #131
JKCalhoun wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you point. But using "right-wingers" is a tell of sorts. It makes you appear dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. But otherwise I agree: there is such a thing as truth and there are out and out lies. I hope that my views are based on truths but I recognize that there are areas that while true are nuanced enough that someone else can come to a different conclusion than me. For this reason I don't claim that eve…

I am dismissive. Because the opposing viewpoint is believing literal lies . Of course I will dismiss that. Everyone should.

Labels polarise.

Criticise the behaviours while allowing the perpetrator wiggle room.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#146

Post by mullingitover »

hugosbaseball wrote: post #140
mullingitover wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where the attention belongs, Zuckerberg has controlling interest[1]: > According to an estimate from CNBC last year, that means Zuckerberg and insiders control about 70 percent of Facebook’s voting shares, with Zuckerberg controlling about 60 percent. So whatever shareholders are voting on, Zuckerberg and those closest to him get to have the final say. So the rest of the "leadership" are effectively Zuckerberg…

If you have more people trying to sell your stock than want to buy it, it doesn't matter how much controlling interest there is. The board has to keep the market happy. The market doesn't care about user privacy or ethics. The market only cares about making more money than was made before. They only care if the source of data (us) get so fed up we stop giving them our data.

> The board has to keep the market happy.

With Zuckerberg controlling 60% of the votes (and thus able to remove any of them unilaterally), the board has exactly one person they need to keep happy.

Zuckerberg could decide tomorrow that Facebook should be converted into a christian singles dating site, share price be damned, and the board would comply or they would be replaced.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#147

Post by jessaustin »

ALittleLight wrote: post #139

Facebook at least claims to be a leader in scanning for and detecting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their platform. As a result of their diligence and size Facebook reports a lot ~90+% of all CSAM reports[1]. That fact suggests that Facebook really is better than most when it comes to detecting CSAM because there is nothing inherent to Facebook that would make it a more appealing platform for CSAM than pornog…

It seems possible that the sort of broken brains who send (and possess in the first place) such material are more likely to use the Facebook platform than they are to use competing social network platforms.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#148

Post by fleddr »

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…

My perspective from the Netherlands...

The way I see it, the US has two "lefts".

Traditional left/progressive values would include things like affordable healthcare, worker protection, progressive taxation, livable wages, the like. Importantly, for all.

The Democrats don't seem to deliver on any of these basics long achieved in many other western countries, therefore I agree that they are neither left nor progressive.

By comparison, not even our main right wing party (VVD) would be as conservative as the Democrats on the matters above. So locally, we would see the "left" Democrats as near far-right. That's one huge gap.

(as a weird complexity, over here "liberal" means right-wing. In the US it means left-wing. yet since US left-wing is in fact right-wing, I guess it does add up)

The second type of left in the US, I do consider truly left. It's hard to put your finger on it, but it includes identity politics, the "woke", down to even marxists.

Clearly they are on the rise, at least in media and institutes. Yet they are now in an unhappy marriage with the core of the Democrats, which as we established is right-wing. Good luck with that.

For the record, here in the Netherlands we largely reject that type of left.

So I agree with most of what you said, except for the Silicon Valley part. You're going to be super surprised how the biggest supporters of extreme left policy are in fact rich comfortable people.

I'll refer to one of the most mind blowing tweets ever produced (now deleted). A co-founder of Twitter took issue with the founder of Coinbase disallowing political discussion in the workplace, and tweeted:

"When the revolution comes, me-only capitalists like X will be the first to be put against the wall. I'll be happy to provide video narration."

The extremity and cruelty is impressive, but the truly shocking part is that the person tweeting it has a net worth of 300M.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#149

Post by jessaustin »

fleddr wrote: post #141
mullingitover wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, FB didn't invent partisanship, misinformation, nor authoritarianism, but I think likely it is worsening it. Absolutely, Zuckerberg is basically a younger, less human version of Rupert Murdoch. He's going where the money takes him, and he's happy to exploit a profitable niche. My point though is that it's increasingly clear that Facebook's audience is becoming just that, an aging niche, and that's not a great…

"My point though is that it's increasingly clear that Facebook's audience is becoming just that, an aging niche, and that's not a great place to be for a social media platform" A few counter points can be made here. Yours is a very US centric view. As one example, in several Central and South American countries, Facebook is everything. It's where everybody is, and this weird western idea that mingling with old people…

Facebook has largely the same dominance in Philippines. However, this situation indicts the nations in question more than it credits Facebook. Facebook is like cigarettes or sugared soda. Yes lots of people like it; no it isn't good for them.

There is no reason that social networks have to be run by firms as unethical as Facebook (i.e., there is no reason for social networks to be run as unethically as Facebook's is run). Please don't bore us with any "the market is always right" arguments. The people in "Western" nations who have decided to use Facebook less (and perhaps, other social networks more) have better taste and more agency than the people you're talking about. Those people should also acquire better taste and more agency.

Re: Facebook's “see no evil” strategy

#150

Post by seppin »

skinkestek wrote: post #48
war1025 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so against people wanting a say over what goes into their bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make that choice. Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it…

Exactly this. Again, I don't believe there was widespread fraud but people who refuse to discuss what happened and refuse inspections sure aren't helping us becomong more confident.

> I don't believe there was widespread fraud

They people that do are basing it on no evidence and lies. There aren't two sides to a lie, and it doesn't deserve equal time to the truth.

Post reply on HN