All this rioting and yet nobody burned down the Facebook offices. A shame, could have brought about the radical change they expected.
FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
221–230 of 527 posts
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps…
Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought…
> you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win.
I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative.
> How did you come to that conclusion?
Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...
Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009
You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people.
> Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
I did not advocate that.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#223Facebook wants their employees to stop talking about politics, even though Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. How exactly do you avoid political discussion when you're asking what constitutes hate speech, whether a US president should be allowed to violate Facebook's content guidelines, or to what extent governments can spread misinformation in other countries? If you work at Facebook, y…
>Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. Why is that "by its nature"? I don't think that's "by its nature" at all. Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow. Why should Facebook? If certain language should be restricted, then laws should be written restricting said language and Face…
You pick up the phone and call someone. You don't pick up the phone and have the phone company present you a list of people you might be interested in calling, ranked by how much they bid to be on that list.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps…
Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought…
I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook by its nature takes stances on deeply political topics. Why is that "by its nature"? I don't think that's "by its nature" at all. Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow. Why should Facebook? If certain language should be restricted, then laws should be written restricting said language and Face…
> Phone companies and ISPs facilitate communication between people, but that doesn't necessitate they take political stances on what communication to allow Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. It just so happens that, I believe in those cases, it's also a legally mandated stance; but, if it weren't a legally mandated stance, it would absolutely be a political stance…
> Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. It just so happens that, I believe in those cases, it's also a legally mandated stance; but, if it weren't a legally mandated stance, it would absolutely be a political stance, whatever they ended up saying.
Not really, no. That is not usually what people mean, when they say "take a political stance".
We can extend this to other examples. Do you think that a grocery store should ban people from their stores, if the individual is wearing a pro Trump, or pro Biden Tshirt?
I think it would be pretty silly to condemn a grocery store, for refusing to ban people from their stores, if they were wearing a "Vote for Biden/Trump" shirt.
Most people would find it absolutely and completely ridiculous to ban people from stores for doing that.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#226I've just been given an offer from Facebook and I have a few days to decide to take the job or not. The ethical implications of what I'm doing are intense. On one hand, a near 400k total comp package is very nice, but on the other hand I don't want to make the world worse off. I think if I could make that kind of money working from home for another company it'd be an easier decision. Unfortunately, I have to play the…
I’m obviously biased since I work there, but I had the exact same concerns before starting two years ago. In reality things are much more different that what HN makes it sound like. There’s all sorts of people, and not everyone agree, and much like the current climate in the US people are getting more and more polarized. I think it’s pretty awesome that everyone in the company is free to express themselves and debate and openly challenge management during Q&As and other events, but I also recognize that at some point the debates can turn toxic and I can see why we would want to avoid that. Once you realize how things work from the inside, you realize that the majority of people do want to make the world a better place, and that it’s easy to pick on things that didn’t work quite well and forget all of the positive sides that social networks have brought to the world. You can tell me that I’m drinking the kool aid but IMO internally things are really not at all like HN likes to portray it everyday.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#227I've just been given an offer from Facebook and I have a few days to decide to take the job or not. The ethical implications of what I'm doing are intense. On one hand, a near 400k total comp package is very nice, but on the other hand I don't want to make the world worse off. I think if I could make that kind of money working from home for another company it'd be an easier decision. Unfortunately, I have to play the…
Do what you know is right. What you can live with and be proud of.
It sounds like, from reading your comment a couple times, you know what is right but are tempted to ignore that and take the cash.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would still have a proper judge made a decision than Facebook. I can easily block people that share BS on Facebook but I don't want Facebook to make that decision for me. That overrides my own choice to follow them in the first place.
What is a “proper judge”? You mean you want the courts to moderate your social platform?
> You mean you want the courts to moderate your social platform?
In situations regarding literal terrorist propaganda, and active calls for violence (Which were the examples given), which are already illegal?
Yes. The courts are the proper place for determining how literal terrorism/imminent threats of violence should be handled.
I don't think this is controversial, to say that people who make imminent calls to violence, as has been already defined as being illegal by the court system, should be handled by the law.
Most everything else should be not blocked by the platform, though.
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taking a stance to not control what communication is allowed is a very political stance. Then in your model of the world, how would one not take a political stance? If everyone takes a political stance in your model by definition no matter what their intents or actions are then it's a rather useless definition.
It's like Rush says in Free Will, "If you choose not to decide, You still have made a choice".
It's a lot like, "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."
Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord
#230I've just been given an offer from Facebook and I have a few days to decide to take the job or not. The ethical implications of what I'm doing are intense. On one hand, a near 400k total comp package is very nice, but on the other hand I don't want to make the world worse off. I think if I could make that kind of money working from home for another company it'd be an easier decision. Unfortunately, I have to play the…
I’m obviously biased since I work there, but I had the exact same concerns before starting two years ago. In reality things are much more different that what HN makes it sound like. There’s all sorts of people, and not everyone agree, and much like the current climate in the US people are getting more and more polarized. I think it’s pretty awesome that everyone in the company is free to express themselves and debate…
I don't think the question is really about how the internal politics of Facebook work. The question is whether you should devote years of your limited working time and your talent to make the world a worse place to live in (which I think FB almost certainly does).