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

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#191

Post by alharith »

crazygringo wrote: post #129
yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

> I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged No, but it's not always clear what the ethical choice is. In philosophy, this is known as pluralism [1] -- the fact that different people have irreconcilable ethical views, with no way to find any "truth". That might seem like a lot of justificatory mumbo-jumbo, but there are genuine ethical arguments on all sides. For example, did you know that in the postwar…

I am sorry to say, this seems like a thoughtful answer but there is a lot of nonsense in it is as well.

For example, pluralism doesn't state there is no way to "find truth", but that in light of multiple views, to have good faith arguments, avoid extremism, and engage in dialog to find common ground.

> but there are genuine ethical arguments on all sides.

These ethical arguments, however genuine they may be, are not equal however, otherwise, you would be falling victim to making the false balance fallacy, commonly observed in media outlets, or the "both sides" argument we have so unlovingly become aware of in recent times. The False balance fallacy essentially tosses out gravity, impact, and context.

> That most of human progress over the past couple of centuries has resulted from companies doing what's most profitable, despite how non-intuitive that is.

Despite the over-simplicity of framing it as companies simply doing what is most profitable, this is, in fact, extremely intuitive, and has been studied, measured, and observed. I am curious what you find unintuitive about it?

> But I am saying that supposing there's some kind of obvious right ethical answer, and implying bad faith towards people at Facebook that they're somehow making decisions they genuinely believe to be wrong but making anyways, is not accurate.

This view may be true in a vacuum, but it is irrelevant. We live in American society, and there is an American ethical framework in which Facebook's actions can be viewed as unethical. Other countries that have this similar issue have their own ethical frameworks in which to deem Facebook's actions ethical/unethical.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#192

Post by smhinsey »

vtail wrote: post #100

Disclaimer: I started working at FB recently. Consider the following model scenario. You are a PM at a discussion board startup in Elbonia. There are too many discussions at every single time, so you personalize the list for each user, showing only discussions she is more likely to interact with (it's a crude indication of user interest, but it's tough to measure it accurately). One day, your brilliant data scientist…

This is why the liberal arts are important, because you need someone in the room with enough knowledge of the world's history to be able to look at this and suggest that maybe given the terrible history of pseudo-scientifically sorting people into political categories, you should not pursue this tactic simply in order to make a buck off of it.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#194

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

gabaix wrote: post #43
yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

Facebook internal memo by Andrew Bosworth, VP June 18, 2016 The Ugly We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be good if they make it positive. Maybe someone finds love. Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide. So we connect more people That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to…

I mean, he's not wrong. Facebook sucks because a lot of people are not-great human beings, and Facebook just allows you to see that. Oops. People might think that peer pressure would shame people into better behavior, but the concept of shame no longer exists in the post-modern world. Everyone feels justified in whatever they believe, and the Covid-19 situation on the platform couldn't be a more perfect example in illustrating the problem.

I say this from first-hand experience. I discovered that people I called friends were racist. I now consider those friends merely acquaintances, and I have since deleted my account. Better to just be ignorant of people's ignorance when I can't do anything about it.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#195

Post by brewdad »

derg wrote: post #182
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

I've gotten better, over time, at typing my heated, emotional response to someone online and then hitting Cancel or the back button and not posting.

Sometimes I do hit the Reply button though. I still have room for self-improvement. :-)

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#196

Post by cryptoz »

renewiltord wrote: post #51
LordHumungous wrote: post #33

> Facebook policy chief Joel Kaplan, who played a central role in vetting proposed changes, argued at the time that efforts to make conversations on the platform more civil were “paternalistic,” said people familiar with his comments. I think Joel was right.

I, too, agree. Facebook is just an extension of the open society.

Facebook admits to doing large-scale emotional manipulation of its users. They published a 'scientific' paper where they showed that they tried and succeeded to make 1 group depressed (hundreds of thousands of people), and 1 group feel happier (also hundreds of thousands of people).

They psychologically manipulate people into depressions, on purpose.

Facebook is not "just" an extension of open society. Facebook is a specific powerful corporation that makes immoral decisions to emotionally control their users.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#197

Post by brlewis »

gabaix wrote: post #43
yumraj wrote: post #17

I've always wondered how such discussions go in company meetings where some product/feature has harmful effect of something/someone but is good for the business of the company. I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality challenged, only perhaps the people in control. So what goes through that minds of people who don't agree with such decisions. Do they keep quiet, just worry about the payroll, convince themselves t…

Facebook internal memo by Andrew Bosworth, VP June 18, 2016 The Ugly We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be good if they make it positive. Maybe someone finds love. Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide. So we connect more people That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to…

>Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth. Not photo tagging. Not news feed. Not messenger. Nothing

Is this certain? The effects of useful features on growth are longer term and harder to measure than, for example, placing and styling friend suggestions in a way to confuse users into thinking they're friend requests.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#198

Post by freeAgent »

vtail wrote: post #100

Disclaimer: I started working at FB recently. Consider the following model scenario. You are a PM at a discussion board startup in Elbonia. There are too many discussions at every single time, so you personalize the list for each user, showing only discussions she is more likely to interact with (it's a crude indication of user interest, but it's tough to measure it accurately). One day, your brilliant data scientist…

That's beside the point, though. The point here is that Facebook executives were told by their own employees that the algorithms they designed were recommending more and more partisan content and de-prioritizing less partisan content because it wasn't as engaging. They were also told that this was potentially causing social issues. In response, Kaplan/FB executives said that changing the algorithm would be too paternalistic (ignoring, apparently, that an algorithm that silently filters without user knowledge or consent is already fundamentally "paternalistic"). Given that Facebook's objective is to "bring the world closer together", choosing to support an algorithm that drives engagement that actually causes division seems a betrayal of its stated goals.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#199

Post by whatshisface »

nickff wrote: post #146
whatever1 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Boeing engineers raised up concerns that were dismissed. “Frankly right now all my internal warning bells are going off,” said the email. “And for the first time in my life, I’m sorry to say that I’m hesitant about putting my family on a Boeing airplane.” [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/boeing-engineer-raised-conce...

I didn't say that nobody raised concerns, I said: >>"I haven't seen any evidence that someone specifically predicted the chain of events which would unfold on those flights, and clearly communicated the issue, then had executive(s) respond that it was 'worth the money'." In large projects like the MAX, there are always people raising concerns.

>In large projects like the MAX, there are always people raising concerns.

Does that mean that people raising concerns can be ignored, or does that mean that most large projects only get by with luck?

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#200

Post by jeffdavis »

derg wrote: post #182
supernova87a wrote: post #149

I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect. Specifically, and more importantly, combined with the human inability to actively decide to not pay attention when things are inconsequential or not yet worth arguing about. Sometimes, just shutting up about an issue and not discussing it is the…

In general and not necessarily related to just facebook, but one of the best things I've come to learn about myself and the world around me is that sometimes the absolute _best_ thing you can do for yourself is to just shut up and walk away, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are correct.

And the corrolary: just because the other party walks away from the argument doesn't mean that you are right.
Post reply on HN