Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#251

Post by shmatt » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #90

shmatt wrote: post #36

There is something that doesn't sit right with me about the whistleblower. Yes, she is a data scientist which gives her many many extra points. But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. Her actual scope of the what was going on in FB as a huge org, as she's trying to comment on (the "I want to fix FB" quotes from 60 minutes) Everyone I know who works in FAANG, FB specifically, and PMs even more specifically, really hav…

So who do you propose to bring in and testify against Facebook who does understand the bigger picture, shmatt? Are you arguing in good faith here?

like i've written in other comments

She has proven evil happened, we're now asking who directed it. The first thing we need to know is who did she report into, and who the most senior person in her teams meetings was.

From there just keep going up, it will stop at some point (I have no doubt there will be zuck martyrs, just wondering at which level)

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#252

Post by axguscbklp » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

woeirua wrote: post #245

axguscbklp wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically. Why, what exactly are they doing that is ethically dubious? So far based on what I have read of this whistleblower's revelations, I do not have a problem with Facebook doing any of it.

Really? You don’t have a problem with an app that causes 1% of teens that use it to develop suicidal thoughts? By the way, according to the leaked study these teens directly attributed their suicidal ideation to Instagram.

Yes, I do not have any problem with it whatsoever. There are probably plenty of books that also cause some percentage of people to develop suicidal thoughts, but I do not want to start banning those books.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#253

Post by zo1 » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #106

echelon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while not illegal While not currently illegal. Call your representatives and tell them you find this reprehensible. Let's make it illegal. We live in a representative democracy.

What is it , exactly?

Ads.

I knew something was seriously wrong the moment I saw a legitimate business (EBay) selling eye-ball space (ads) on their property that was supposedly profitable through legitimate business (hosting a marketplace, taking a cut, etc).

Ads create a negative and detrimental feedback loop by incentivizing dark patterns and other negative gamification in order to squeeze out previously non-existant eyeball time from your product. E.g. the optimal path for say EBay is to have a user come on, find what they want, browse a bit through interesting things and recommendations, buy what they want/need, then log off. Instead, ads have incentivized spam listings which do two things: More eyeball time and thus ad-impressions/clicks. And they've cause the creation of non-optimal experiences by allowing non-optimal players to exist through pure randomness. I.e. In an ideal market, it should be "winner takes all" for any unique genre or field or product space, one which should be exploring. Instead, the spam listings make it so a non-negligible amount of useless and bottom of the barrel products/sellers/companies to exist and thrive.

For FB, ads have commoditized eyeball time even more directly than the indirect example I gave above with EBay. A potential product path with FB should be people using it as a platform to interact with people they know, organize events, and to have a shared space to communicate and discuss ideas.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#254

Post by cratermoon » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

oarabbus_ wrote: post #140

asdff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

> Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. Very interesting idea, actually. There is evidence Social Media causes harm to some individuals' mental health (in a widespread manner causing some measurable societal harm), so a proposed tax on all social media companies with revenue going towards mental health programs seems worth exploring. Generally I'm not much in f…

> There is evidence Social Media causes harm to some individuals' mental health (in a widespread manner causing some measurable societal harm)

And they do so by exploiting human weaknesses using the same psychological techniques used by casinos and other forms of gambling.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#255

Post by BitwiseFool » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

farcebook wrote: post #191

ozzythecat wrote: post #141

I don’t personally use FB and don’t have a very favorable view of their products. I would, however, like to see the same level scrutiny applied to the general American media, especially the news media. FB has come in and started eating their lunch. There’s a deeper problem here, and it feels more like the powers that he want to take down FB. I’m not denying any allegation made against FB, but why is it that Fox News,…

One, most of the mainstream news has at least basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness. Facebook, along with some of the sketchier news outlets, are the opposite: they profit off (and optimize for) disinformation. Two, it's a matter of scale. Facebook reaches a far larger audience and has far more detail into their preferences and can nano-target personalized stories for them and c…

>"basic editorial processes in place that do a rudimentary check on truthiness"

I think this is merely an illusion. The beauty of English is that you can spin a story a dozen different ways while still presenting 'true' facts/details about an event. (Edit: "Fiery, but mostly peaceful" is a quintessential example of this.) You can also shape how strongly the public reacts to something by how much you decide to cover the story. I guarantee you that if the Fall of Kabul happened under Donald Trump's administration we'd still be getting daily news stories about the fallout.

Furthermore, the press has done an excellent job of branding itself as an impartial arbiter of truth, whereas in reality they're just another business run by people with their own motivations.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#256

Post by kentonv » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

shmatt wrote: post #208

kentonv wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, she was a PM for 2 years in FAANG. More like 15 years. I've known Frances since 2009 when she was a PM at Google, where she worked on a few products including Google+. She also spent several years an Pinterest which, while not technically a FAANG, is certainly a major social network that does lots of algorithmic ranking. She is definitely an expert in the topics she is testifying about.

my point was, people who work for 2 years at FAANG, in 1 company, far from understand the complete scope. I did not mean she was 2 years into her career It can take 6 months to just fully understand what a 7 person team does After 2 years at Facebook, does she really understand the full strategy 4 levels above her? Her leak is super important, but she doesn't have all the answers the media is claiming she does

I think her fundamental argument isn't even really about Facebook specifically. It's about algorithmic content ranking being intrinsically harmful to society. The thing that's specific to Facebook is that they actually have a ton of research quantifying this -- which she has released -- and yet they are still all-in on it.

It doesn't seem like there's a lot of complexity to understand here about how Facebook works as a company. Their commitment to optimizing metrics over all else is well-known already. The interesting thing is the research showing how harmful that is.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#257

Post by elliekelly » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

shmatt wrote: post #216

unsui wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is textbook ad hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself Question her motives or qualifications, rather than the claims themselves.

No. I want to see c-level, senior vp's, and around them start answering questions. Now that its in congress, subpoenas are pretty easy

Lucky for Zuck he’s spent the last decade cultivating lots of relationships in DC...

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#258

Post by cratermoon » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #147

The title here doesn't match the article headline. The documents make Facebook look bad but so far I haven't seen anything incriminating , in the sense of violating a US Federal criminal statute. Are there credible allegations of something like securities fraud or wire fraud here? Note that there is no generally no law against disseminating incorrect or "harmful" information.

The fact that it's possible to question whether or not any illegal behavior has been revealed doesn't mean that Facebook didn't cause – and is not causing – any harm doesn't mean there's no basis to Haugen's revelations.

Rather, it means that under the current regulatory regime, there are no penalties for behavior harmful to consumers. That the only recourse is to file with the SEC alleging harm to the stockholders is simply a reflection of the fact that the mantra of "shareholder value" has become the only law that corporations have to follow.

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#259

Post by mrep » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #139

asdff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

> sin taxes How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?

For everyone responding that smokers cost the government money, it is actually the opposite in that they save the government money because on average they die sooner. From the manning study: "In this analysis, the federal government saves about $29 billion per year in net health and retirement costs (accounting for effects on tax payments). These include a saving in retirement (largely social security benefits) of about $40 billion and in nursing home costs (largely medicaid) of about $8 billion. Costs include about $7 billion for medical care under 65 and about $2 billion for medical care over 65; the remaining $10 billion cost is the loss in contributions to social security and general revenues that fund medicaid. "

(PDF): https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/19980430_97-1053E_53c59...

Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs

#260

Post by naravara » Tue, Oct 05, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

hunterb123 wrote: post #134

asdff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treat addictive social media companies like addictive cigarette companies. Lets see some huge warning labels about how mentally harmful it is to continue scrolling on facebook right on the first result where its unavoidable to see. Lets tax the hell out of social media companies to generate local revenue just like sin taxes. It won't be a huge change but it will be a great starting point and will come with revenue th…

Uhm a cigarette you cannot change the base ingredient of, it's tobacco. A cig by definition burns the carcinogen tobacco. A site you can specify certain requirements like no doom scrolling or requirements like PUBLISH YOUR ALGORITHMS. Why go full California with another banner? People will ignore it and you will have done nothing of substance.

Moreover, warnings are useless if people can't vote with their feet. So if you want to actually affect change in the dynamics of the market you need to make services compete on quality and value to the customer rather than engaging in a scramble to accrue insurmountable network effects and lock-in.

That means mandates for data interoperability. Sadly, I have no idea how to implement that in a way that doesn't utterly stifle innovation by ossifying what sorts of data models social media is allowed to have. But at the very least we could create a sort of interoperability minimum that prevents you from locking up things like photo albums or peoples' "social graphs."

Over the longer term I'd like to see some kind of disentanglement of the protocols, standards, and data models from the front-end clients. It's obviously a lot more complicated now, but in the same way that you could access AIM, ICQ, GChat, and a bunch of other stuff from a variety of chat clients it would be good to be able to do this with everything social. Hell, ActivityPub basically tries to do this now so it's not impossible.