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

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#171

Post by addicted »

skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

It’s interesting that you don’t even agree with the fact that Zuckerberg claims. That polarization is declining or flat outside the US. Your claims that it’s less than in the US, but still increasing outside the US is a lot more aligned with reality.

But the fact is that this isn’t the defense Zuckerberg thinks it is. In fact, it may even suggest the absolute opposite.

Facebook has never been as popular outside the US as it has within it. The best indication of this fact is FB’s $19Bn purchase of WhatsApp which was largely driven by the fact that FB Messenger was basically only popular within the US, with the rest of the world preferring WhatsApp, which was also an indication of how FB’s network was simply not as entrenched outside the US as it was within it.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#172

Post by wespiser_2018 »

jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

Not all evil looks that way to outside observers, unfortunately. I believe that the assumptions of FB that allowed it to get so big, "optimize engagement above all else", built a system that in many ways is at odds with the values of our society when everyone is a user.

Internally at FB, everything looks good, you hit all your OKRs and believe users are better off. Maybe you don't, but you're bonus is huge so you'll put your head down and keep on. Externally, it's an entirely different picture. Connecting people is a comically small issue society needs FB to solve, relative to our need for them not to harm children, or promote extremism, or hide research when testifying to congress.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#173

Post by wpietri »

jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

> So maybe Zuck is telling the truth here, that they are trying to fix all this. But no one can see the forest from the trees.

Ah, this is what I think of as Schrodinger's Accountability. Zuckerberg and Facebook's senior execs are simultaneously: A) so brilliant for running Facebook that they deserve to be incredibly rich, and B) so normal that they can't possibly be expected to understand the consequences of their actions, and so are morally blameless. Heads they win, tails we lose.

I say it's one or the other. If Facebook is too big to be understood, it should be broken up into small enough units that mere mortals can see the forest and tend it responsibly. And if not, the execs should be morally and legally culpable for the harm it does.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#174

Post by Laremere »

skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

This is a good observation, but I don't think it absolves social media. There are likely many factors increasing polarization, and social media may amplify those factors and/or turn otherwise harmless factors into harmful ones.

The core idea behind social media is that it amplifies various voices, instead of those few who's job it is to participate in the media. In the US, this has effectively turned our right to freedom of speech into a right of freedom to broadcast.

The total size, wealth, and political influence of the US are much larger than the most culturally comparable nations. The value for those within and without the nation to spend effort using social media to influence discourse and election results is high, and is likely at least a partial factor.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#175

Post by normac2 »

Some of this highlights an issue that I think about a lot (and it's obviously not just me): the duty of corporations to maximize profit of shareholders (as represented by the majority vote of the board, as I understand it) over all other concerns.

Zuckerberg writes this:

> At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That's just not true.

Last I heard, he owned the voting shares of the company by a razor thin margin (~ 53%). If he owned even 0.1% less than half of the company, wouldn't this sentence be confessing to unlawful activity?

Unless, of course, we take a legalistic reading that he really means they maximize profit in the short term, but make it up in the long term by good publicity and such. But that's hardly the natural reading of what he wrote. It seems to me like he's ~ 3% of an ownership stake away from a situation where he'd be confessing to violating shareholder rights even by writing that--let alone being responsible to run the company in a way that actually does prioritize profit over safety and well-being. All of this to me seems like a flaw in the American system of financial law.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#176

Post by frankosaurus »

skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

One possible explanation is that Facebook in US is subject to more adversarial actors than other countries.

A propagandist-for-hire choosing to astroturf, conduct false flag campaigns, form vote brigades, etc. is more likely to target the US political market because -- globally speaking -- there's more political power at stake.

Whether FB can claim that as an excuse is another question.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#177

Post by Aritch89 »

sfblah wrote: post #30
pshc wrote: post #9

Three minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. You can stop reading by paragraph two at "We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health." All Facebook cares about is engagement.

Yeah. The second paragraph honestly just made me dislike him and want to close my account.

Unfortunately most of us unknowingly are giving away our time, attention and data to the likes of Facebook, etc. and don’t know what it’s costing us. Join the club and delete, take away their power! You can socialize and share just as easily without these jokers.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#178

Post by wpietri »

parhamn wrote: post #114
wpietri wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I once saw an accountant write, "Don't tell me your priorities. Show me your budget and I'll tell you your priorities." Facebook's whole history is not really caring about those things. What they care about is not looking bad. Which is why they trot out those lines when things get too awful for the public, the press, and legislators to ignore.

You may already know, but that quote sounds a lot like Munger's “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.”

Ooh, that's a good quote as well.
Post reply on HN