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

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#21

Post by pmoriarty »

wyattpeak wrote: post #16
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…

"For as long as there's been national news, it's been dominated by a few headline sources. ... I don't know what the difference is today."

The difference is that a diverse, global set of individuals are becoming content creators, and a potentially global megaphone is being passed on to them.

Early on in the Internet's history it seemed that this emancipation of the individual voice from corporate and government control was going to be permanent, but governments and corporations have proven to be very adept at adapting and clawing their way back to positions of control.

And, in a twist that few expected, most individuals were happy to cede control back to governments and corporations for the sake of convenience and because they wanted to be protected from the speech of other individuals.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#22

Post by bourgwaletariat »

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…

I pretty much only log in to make comments like this and the message is well received.

We are the ones doing this. Doing something wrong isn't right because someone paid you to. No, it's even worse. It's immoral.

I was instructed by management to implement signature fraud into a contract management system for a multibillion dollar real estate brokerage.

It was illegal. I refused. They fired me on illegal grounds. I sued and I am currently waiting for a verdict.

You can do what is right. You can say no. You can share your complaints about illegal behavior by corporate employees who don't care about what is right with the world.

If all the software engineers who are doing the immoral things at Facebook would just quit, there wouldn't be anymore of it. It'd be over.

Just walk away.

It's destroying the planet. That is not hyperbole. We are, in fact, intentionally creating suffering for millions of people, ... billions of people for ... money.

Just stop doing it and the world will instantly become a better place.

Not a single person on the planet thinks Zuckerberg is a good person. He is on the record explaining the nefarious reasons he created Facebook. The entire business was built for lecherous, creepy, misogynist purposes.

If you work there, you are part of the problem. If you work at Google, you're part of the problem. If you work at the big banks, you're part of the problem. If you work for Monsanto, and on and on and on, then you are part of the problem.

You are destroying the planet and humanity and minds.

Just... stop.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#23

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#24

Post by FeepingCreature »

bourgwaletariat wrote: post #22
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…

I pretty much only log in to make comments like this and the message is well received. We are the ones doing this. Doing something wrong isn't right because someone paid you to. No, it's even worse . It's immoral. I was instructed by management to implement signature fraud into a contract management system for a multibillion dollar real estate brokerage. It was illegal. I refused. They fired me on illegal grounds. I…

I don't disagree with your point, but what the hell - "lecherous, creepy, misogynist purposes"?? Zuckerberg built Facebook to propagate his goal of harming women? What?

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#25

Post by Barrin92 »

There's some real crazy quotes in that piece

>"According to the newspaper, Zhang was fired for “spending too much time focused on uprooting civic fake engagement and not enough time on the priorities outlined by management.”"[...]

>"Facebook’s products enabled corrupt governments to create fake followers and fake “likes,” which then triggered Facebook’s algorithms to boost their propaganda and legitimacy. According to the Guardian, when Zhang alerted >higher-ups about how this was being used by the government of Honduras, an executive told her, “I don’t think Honduras is big on people’s minds here.”

Just ponder that attitude for a second and ask yourself if it can truly be said that Facebook is still in any way shape or form aligned with human flourishing.

And more importantly small countries should take note. Their communication infrastructure is controlled by people who treat them like pocket change.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#26

Post by staticautomatic »

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…

Are we the baddies?

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#27

Post by Animats »

im_down_w_otp wrote: post #12
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…

It seems like what they've done is basically automate, "Give the people what they want.", as it were.

Yes. Facebook profits from giving people what they want, but did not create the demand. What's scary is the quantity of demand for nuttiness.

The other big feature of social media is that it brings diffuse minorities together. Before social media, outliers were unlikely to meet those with similar inclinations. Social media powered cohesion of groups from gays to Proud Boys to flat-earthers.

Fox News probably influences more people, anyway. Should they be "brought under control?"

I'm more worried about the trend towards censorship everywhere.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#28

Post by creeperberg »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #24
bourgwaletariat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pretty much only log in to make comments like this and the message is well received. We are the ones doing this. Doing something wrong isn't right because someone paid you to. No, it's even worse . It's immoral. I was instructed by management to implement signature fraud into a contract management system for a multibillion dollar real estate brokerage. It was illegal. I refused. They fired me on illegal grounds. I…

I don't disagree with your point, but what the hell - "lecherous, creepy, misogynist purposes"?? Zuckerberg built Facebook to propagate his goal of harming women? What?

See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...

Zuckerberg initially made Facebook so he could creep on the girls at Harvard.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#29

Post by _y5hn »

staticassertion wrote: post #20
justapassenger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Teams must be responsible, ie. when harm is done, they know how to amend it fast. Company culture need to prefer this beforehand. Accept the added costs, to reduce those risks and damages. It's part of fix your own shit, don't export it to hostages.

Accountability will need to be with the people calling the shots.

There is education for all levels in this.

Re: Facebook and the Normalization of Deviance

#30

Post by FeepingCreature »

creeperberg wrote: post #28
FeepingCreature wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your point, but what the hell - "lecherous, creepy, misogynist purposes"?? Zuckerberg built Facebook to propagate his goal of harming women? What?

See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat... Zuckerberg initially made Facebook so he could creep on the girls at Harvard.

I honestly don't see anything creepy about that. Let alone "misogynistic".

edit: Oh, gathered without explicit consent. Well that's dumb of him. Still, they're public photos...

edit: Okay, the article says "from the facebooks", and "hacked into", but that might mean whatever, so I'm willing to tentatively grant "creepy" on the basis of lack of consent. I still think misogynistic is a stretch.

At any rate, I don't think this makes Facebook misogynistic even granting that this website concept is. Really, what this says to me is mostly "Mark Zuckerberg has no understanding of privacy or private space." Which, um. Yes.

edit: To clarify, the reason I think it's a bad take to call this creepy and misogynistic, and that I'm annoyed enough to raise the issue, is that it's fairly well-established that men tend to rate women in their heads, because they're more visually focused on average. So this just seems like another instance of taking a totally normal, widespread male behavior, adding a social disability on top, and calling the result creepy - a creep and misogynist in other words being a person who does "being a man" badly, like the uncanny valley of gender performance. I'm not defending Zuckerberg in general here, or even the thing he did in itself, I just find the framing problematic.

Post reply on HN