Live data from Hacker News

FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

wsj.com

241–250 of 527 posts

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#241
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on if your existence is political I suppose. Ask some of your LGBT colleagues, especially trans colleagues, if they feel like can just leave politics at the door.

I have worked with many LGBT colleagues who never bring up politics at work. This "existence is political" thing is just a bullshit phrase that the obnoxious people who can't go an hour without bringing that crap up use to justify it.

Remember there are multiple supreme court cases just this year about trans people's right to both be trans and employed. That's part of what is meant by "existence being political".

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if it wasn’t a Fox News talking head, but an incendiary video built on falsehoods being spread to incite violence - or what if it’s 2011 again and ISIS beheading videos are being shared and supposing the evidence showed they were causing ISIS recruitment to increase?

That should be OK. If my friend wants to send it to me, why shouldn't he be allowed to?

On an individual basis - one-to-one communication, sure.

But on a publishing platform where a posted article can have millions of viewers with no connection to the author who would miss out on important context... that won't end well.

There's a difference between Facebook facilitating private communication between individuals and small groups with inherently limited information-spread (e.g. phone calls, emails, IM) and Facebook operating a publishing platform that allows for mass communication. The problems we're seeing today stem from that very same mass-communication publishing platform being used as a state-level propaganda tool to sway public opinion (e.g. Russia discouraging Dem-leaning voters in 2016) at one end, to Facebook knowingly allowing and facilitating extremist groups to operate on their platform and coordinate real-life terroristic assaults at the other end.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Facebook, by it's nature, is designed to filter content. It turned everyone and everything into a content generator, even down to the level of "Jimmy liked a post by Burger King!". It gives everyone access to this unfathomable ocean of content, and then filters it down to something a person can consume. Some of filtering is based on what the user wants to see, some of it is based on some notion of how "good"…

This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one. If Facebook limits the filtering to engagement, then it isn't the fault of Facebook that political content is engaging. That's just human nature. Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and apread quickly as town gossip well before…

Whether or not a property of a system is emergent does not seem particularly relevant to discussing its effects. It would be nice if we could just look at the way a platform like Facebook works, or see that it does not intend to be a "political actor", but the reality is that its effects are destructive. It has a strong effect on politics. The effects of Facebook are not outside of its responsibility simply because it isn't programmed to be political.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Facebook, by it's nature, is designed to filter content. It turned everyone and everything into a content generator, even down to the level of "Jimmy liked a post by Burger King!". It gives everyone access to this unfathomable ocean of content, and then filters it down to something a person can consume. Some of filtering is based on what the user wants to see, some of it is based on some notion of how "good"…

This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one. If Facebook limits the filtering to engagement, then it isn't the fault of Facebook that political content is engaging. That's just human nature. Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and apread quickly as town gossip well before…

I agree with what you're saying; pointing a finger at one particular thing and saying "this gets suppressed" is a bad solution. In fact it probably opens the door to a whole new category of problems.

But... I think what we're seeing with political content is just a symptom of the real problem.

> Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and spread quickly as town gossip well before Facebook.

This is true. But when information spreads through people's conversations with each other there's limits to how fast it spreads. There's also a lot of room for dialogue and different perspectives. If I have some silly conspiracy theory that I want to spread around, it's going to be pretty hard to convince the people around me that 5G is going to activate microchips that were injected into my bloodstream. They will likely point out that basic laws of physics don't really allow for that. But if I know how to game a social media algorithm[0] to connect me with millions of people that are susceptible to that kind of thinking, I could convince a shockingly huge number of them to believe it[1]. Especially if the social media platform isolates those people from opposing opinions and connects them with people that think similarly.

I think social media is like removing the control rods from a reactor. Those basic human flaws are now being amplified and capitalized on at a scale we can barely even grasp. And it really doesn't matter if Facebook, Twitter, etc. are "at fault" or not. It's a fundamental problem with this services and the problems will continue to get worse.

0. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/10/889037310/anatomy-of-a-covid-... 1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/13/us/coronavirus-made-in-lab-po...

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a copy/pasta of a previous post of mine, but I feel it's very fitting here. Why would they give up control of the world by doing something silly like that? Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. The crazy thing abo…

> Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. I hope you take this as kindly as I intend it, but what you're proposing is a conspiracy theory. This is a relatively nice attribute for a theory to have, because it gives you a nic…

fake

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Facebook, by it's nature, is designed to filter content. It turned everyone and everything into a content generator, even down to the level of "Jimmy liked a post by Burger King!". It gives everyone access to this unfathomable ocean of content, and then filters it down to something a person can consume. Some of filtering is based on what the user wants to see, some of it is based on some notion of how "good"…

This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one. If Facebook limits the filtering to engagement, then it isn't the fault of Facebook that political content is engaging. That's just human nature. Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and apread quickly as town gossip well before…

> let's say that the news feed showed you content based purely on number of likes

Does any site actually do this successfully? It seems to me that even sites that lean heavily towards algorithmic curation (including HN) still have an element of human veto.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#247
post #221

All this rioting and yet nobody burned down the Facebook offices. A shame, could have brought about the radical change they expected.

By “they” do you mean Facebook? Or the rioters?

…or were you intentionally toeing the line between sarcasm and anarchy?

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Facebook, by it's nature, is designed to filter content. It turned everyone and everything into a content generator, even down to the level of "Jimmy liked a post by Burger King!". It gives everyone access to this unfathomable ocean of content, and then filters it down to something a person can consume. Some of filtering is based on what the user wants to see, some of it is based on some notion of how "good"…

This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one. If Facebook limits the filtering to engagement, then it isn't the fault of Facebook that political content is engaging. That's just human nature. Disasters, outrage, politics, polarizing topics - these are all popular topics both online and off-line, and apread quickly as town gossip well before…

> This is a fair point, but I think the political aspect is an "emergent property" if you will, rather than an inherent one.

This is like saying discrimination that gets baked into an ML model isn't the creators' fault imo.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#249
post #194

Earlier 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.

Indeed! We all take political stances every day and it is certainly not possible to run an apolitical social network. The word is probably not very useful. But being able to reflect on “sensitive” issues is extremely useful and, I would argue, necessary.

And yet any random person on the street can easily flag something as being political or not political. I don’t accept that everything is automatically political. That is just an unrealistic argument that doesn’t match the reality of how the word is used.

Re: FB to curb internal debate over sensitive issues amid employee discord

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a copy/pasta of a previous post of mine, but I feel it's very fitting here. Why would they give up control of the world by doing something silly like that? Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. The crazy thing abo…

> Think about how much political influence Twitter has based solely on which tweets they show the President and corporate press. Consider how much untraced in-kind donations these companies can make by tweaking which news stories you see. I hope you take this as kindly as I intend it, but what you're proposing is a conspiracy theory. This is a relatively nice attribute for a theory to have, because it gives you a nic…

I'm not imagining an intentional conspiracy by anyone. Everyone need only respond to incentives. The AI responds to the incentives it was programmed to respond to such as engagement. The workers are responding to incentives such as profit. They tell you they censor some people because they fear it will radicalize you, will harm profits, or other similarly non-nefarious incentives. No conspiracy or under handed behavior is required.
Post reply on HN