Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by jimmaswell » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

alharith wrote: post #191

crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> American ethical framework in which Facebook's actions can be viewed as unethical

I'm curious what you mean by this, because I'd expect the American values of independence and free expression to be counter to wanting Facebook to actively supress divisive discourse. (Yes, I know the first amendment only applies to the government; the point is the spirit of the "American ethical framework")

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

#222

Post by bcrosby95 » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #98

The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them. An algorithm selects content that you are likely to agree with or that you have shown previous interest. This only causes people to get reinforced in their beliefs and this leads to polarization. For example, when I browse videos on Youtube I will only get democratic content (even though I am from Poland). Seems as soon as you click on couple en…

This isn't necessarily bad all the time. But when content is used to form opinions on real world things that actually Matter, it definitely becomes a problem.

In other words, Steam, please filter games by my engagement in previous games I've played. News organizations, please don't filter news by my engagement in previous news.

Facebook's problem is it acts in two worlds: keeping up with your friends, and learning important information. If all you did was keep up with your friends' lives, filtering content by engagement is kind of meh.

Same with youtube. I mostly spend all my time on there watching technical talks and video game related stuff. It's pure entertainment. So filtering content is fine. But if I also used it to get my news, you start to run into problems.

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

#223

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #172

dragonwriter wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, did you know that in the postwar 1950's, the lack of polarization and divisiveness in American society was widely seen as a major problem, because it didn't provide enough voter choice between the two parties? There was not a lack of polarization and divisiveness in American society . The divides in American society and politics didn't map well to the two major political parties because there was a maj…

So are you saying polarization makes it easier for people to vote? It sounds plausible and undesirable.

> So are you saying polarization makes it easier for people to vote?

No, I'm saying that the description that polarization was absent is wrong.

I'm also saying alignment of the axis of differentiation between the major parties in a two-party system and the salient divides in society makes it easier for people to make meaningful choices, and feel they are doing so, by voting.

When there are sharp polarizing social/political divides, as there were over many issues in the 1950s, and they are not reflected in the divides between the parties (as they often weren't in the 1950s), then the government cannot represent the people because the people cannot express their preferences on important issues by voting.

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

#224

Post by crazygringo » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

alharith wrote: post #191

crazygringo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> pluralism doesn't state there is no way to "find truth"

To the contrary, that is literally what pluralism as a philosophical concept says. You can read up on Isaiah Berlin's "value pluralism" [1], for example.

> These ethical arguments, however genuine they may be, are not equal however

On what basis? Again, the entire premise of pluralism provides no method for comparison.

> this is, in fact, extremely intuitive

Many would disagree. You might enjoy reading [2], which explains just how hard it is for citizens to understand it, from the point of view of an economics professor.

> and there is an American ethical framework

Except there isn't, that's the point. For example, Republicans and Democrats obviously believe in deeply divergent ethical frameworks. And there's far more diversity beyond that. Plus there's no way to say that any American ethical framework would even be right -- what if it were wrong and needed correction?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999680

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

#225

Post by freeAgent » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

Osiris wrote: post #177

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…

I miss the days when my feed wasn't curated at all and just sorted by most recent post. The whole point of having friends and being able to (un)follow people is to I can curate my own feed. I don't use Facebook anymore except for hobby related groups like my motorcycling group.

Same. I miss the days of the chronological feed. Facebook's algorithms seem to choose a handful of people and groups I'm connected to and constantly show me their content and nothing else. It's always illuminating when I look someone up after wondering what happened to them only to see that they've been keeping up with Facebook, but I just don't see any of their posts.

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

#226

Post by MrZander » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #98

The problem really is platforms that give people content to please them. An algorithm selects content that you are likely to agree with or that you have shown previous interest. This only causes people to get reinforced in their beliefs and this leads to polarization. For example, when I browse videos on Youtube I will only get democratic content (even though I am from Poland). Seems as soon as you click on couple en…

That is a really annoying issue I have with YouTube.

I occasionally watch some of the Joe Rogan podcast videos when he has a guest I'm interested in. I swear, as soon as I watch one JRE video, I am suddenly inundated with suggestions for videos with really click-baity and highly politicized topics.

I've actually gotten to the point where I actively avoid videos that I want to watch because I know what kind of a response YouTube will have. Either that or I open them in incognito mode. It's a shame. I wish I could just explicitly define my interests rather than YT trying to guess what I want to watch.

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

#227

Post by _tulpa » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

_2d30 wrote: post #214

DSingularity wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are more isolated in the real world? Please provide a source. Aside from the fact that this is hard to measure now that the underlying medium has itself been modified — I would hardly expect this to be the case. Online I am connected to those whom I socialize with or am otherwise professionally connected to. In the “real world” this constraint is largely absent.

I highly doubt you and I are socially or professionally connected and yet here we are.

This connection doesn't mean shit compared to someone you see face to face and share experiences with. Yet this watered down form of connection seems to have replaced the latter, which I think is the fundamental social problem of the internet.

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

#228

Post by nickff » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #199

nickff wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that's a really interesting question, but I think the answer is orthogonal to your dichotomy. In my experience, very successful projects depend on the great managers that know who to listen to in each different situation, and they know how people will react in each situation.

One of the best examples of this is Dave Lewis, who lead the design of the F-4 Phantom II, one of the most successful fighter aircraft of all time. He directed the structural design team to design for 80% of the required ultimate load, because he knew that everyone was conservative in their numbers; then the design was tested. The structure ended up lighter than comparable aircraft, and the Phantom II had phenomenal performance.

It also helps if the managers are good at making predictions of their own; Tetlock has written two great books about this, including: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting:_The_Art_and_...

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

#229

Post by DanielBMarkham » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

Everybody who uses Facebook should spend about ten minutes on it. Catch up with the important things friends are doing and leave.

Unfortunately, this behavior is not in Facebook's best interest. For them, it's Facebook now, Facebook later, Facebook as far as the eye can see. Everything is Facebook.

There is a premise to this article that needs to be called out and expunged. I have come to the sad conclusion that Facebook is a company that should not exist. It's laying waste to huge sections of the economy that used to provide valuable, informative content, it's in a battle to suck your entire day away from you with streaming and other services, and it's premise is in direct contradiction to how we know societies evolve. You can't start with "how do we fix it" and end up anywhere good.

They're not dummies. There might be a lot of happy-talk, echo chamber discussions happening inside the company, but they know the score. That's why they're picking political winners and losers. I imagine there's a ton of money heading out to both parties to provide cover over the next few election cycles.

I think looking back, if we manage to navigate our way through this period, it's going to be viewed as a very sad and dark time, much like the dark ages. I sincerely hope I am completely wrong about all of this.

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

#230

Post by ergl » Tue, May 26, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #56

People always blame Facebook when the existence of Internet forums has always led to radicalization of individuals. Facebook's crime is making forums accessible to all. These are just your fellow people. This is how they are in the situation that they're in. So be it. Let them speak to others like them. The cost of that is many angry people. The benefit of that is that folks like me can find my people. That benefit o…

> The cost of that is many angry people. The benefit of that is that folks like me can find my people. That benefit outweighs the cost.

It outweighs the cost for you. It certainly doesn't for society at large.