Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 300 posts

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#281

Post by willvarfar »

mikeash wrote: post #274
Crespyl wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when things like this happen, it usually falls under the category of "bad news is bad news" and people will want to reach out to friends/loved ones who may have been affected. If my friend is going overseas for a month (and there aren't any terror attacks or plane crashes or whatever), I will probably assume they're doing just fine, haven't been mugged or gotten lost in the woods or anything unless I specific…

Well put. "No news is good news" is predicated on no news . If nothing noteworthy happens then most people are fine with assuming you're doing fine until and unless they hear otherwise. But if some disaster (even a localized one) happens in the area where they know you are, that doesn't apply anymore.

That interpretation is actually at odds with my experience and how others have described it to me. I recall my mum describing the fear of receiving a telegram during the war. People would assure themselves nothing had happened to loved ones fighting because they had received no news. And when I myself was in London I think it was 7 7 bombings my family again assumed I wasn't caught up in it because they received no visit from the police. I didn't call until a long time after, despite evacuating the tube one stop from one of the bombs or something. Mind is fuzzy. Anyway, I think that is how the stiff upper lip stoic Brits are. Or were. Perhaps the modern generation are good for nothing self absorbed hugging kinds? Too much Anerican influence perhaps ;)

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#282

Post by alistairSH »

dx034 wrote: post #161
jdietrich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 500 people were directly endangered by this incident. The Safety Check alert seems to extend well beyond Greater London, so at least 9 million people. That gives us an approximate false positive rate of 99.995%. Is that reasonable or proportionate? Does it actually provide useful information? Is it likely to quell unfounded fears and provide genuine reassurance? As tragic as this incident was, it affected a sin…

> About 500 people were directly endangered by this incident. The Safety Check alert seems to extend well beyond Greater London, so at least 9 million people. That gives us an approximate false positive rate of 99.995%. I live in London but have friends around the world that haven't visited me yet and don't know where I live. After an event like yesterday I get a lot of messages asking if I'm ok, so using the safety…

As a counter to that, I have friends in London and I didn't think to check in on them. Somebody would have called/texted/emailed if those friends were in trouble. As said above "no news is good news".

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#283

Post by alistairSH »

captainmuon wrote: post #278
jdietrich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 500 people were directly endangered by this incident. The Safety Check alert seems to extend well beyond Greater London, so at least 9 million people. That gives us an approximate false positive rate of 99.995%. Is that reasonable or proportionate? Does it actually provide useful information? Is it likely to quell unfounded fears and provide genuine reassurance? As tragic as this incident was, it affected a sin…

You might have friends on Facebook who are not locals. When a chemical plant blew up spectacularly in Tianjin, China, I was more than an hour away in Beijing. I still got a lot of worried inquiries (from those who heard about it anyway). The same when there was a terrorist attack in Berlin. I was at the other side of the city. There was no Safety Check, but I posted about it, because events like these affect people e…

Why would people worry that you, in Beijing, was at risk from an explosion in Tianjin (100km distant)?

If a bomb goes off in Baltimore, I don't call all my DC friends.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#284

Post by rabboRubble »

3ygun wrote: post #179
rabboRubble wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was comparing geographic size, the 6 miles referenced by the poster above me. Both events were in a small geographic area. I guess I feel I have the right to make the comparison. I wasn't there in NYC, but I had "some skin in the game" on 9/11 so to speak. From that experience, and from later ones, I can put myself into the shoes of somebody wondering if their loved one was mixed up in the London fire. To them, it…

rabboRubble To start off I understand your point that the Safety Check feature can be valuable. Japan's typhoon system is fantastic example you brought up where the entire population of a city needs to, after the incident, notate their safety. However, this is vastly different than the case being discussed of the London fire. In the London fire a small minority, ~500 people, results in a 6 miles notification (other c…

Interesting comment from a different angle. I guess what set me greatly opposed to the author's article was "There is zero need for a Safety Check feature." quote near the end of the essay. I disagree with him entirely, and for the reasons I originally stated.

After reading all the comments my observations kicked off, your's actually caused me to think outside of my own set of experiences. I kinda see your point. That said, I still stand by my original position that FB's service fills a purpose at the Katrina / regional earthquake & tsunami level. However perhaps they need to work on the fine tuning. Personally glad I don't work in this area inside FB! They are going to be criticized for setting the threshold too high or too low regardless.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#285

Post by aaron-lebo »

idibidiartists wrote: post #231
simongray wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has just shy of 1.4 billion people. That is not more people than Facebook has users according to this statistic》 https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net...

A lot of them are business accounts, bots and fake or throwaway. I have 3. How can anyone be sure that each account is a person. It says a lot about general IQ on HN that I got 4 downvotes for suggesting that Facebook has less users (real ones) than China has people (real ones, too!)

Have your upvote. Maybe if you had said this the first time you wouldn't have gotten downvoted.

It's possible, even likely that FB has 600 million fake accounts, but you didn't even bother explaining yourself.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#286

Post by pdkl95 »

goldfire wrote: post #279
pdkl95 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I applaud any attempt to gather real and first-person observations... > I don't see any evidence of any mic uploads. ... I am somewhat concerned at what seems to be a common assumption that Facebook (or any other remote server) is sending the same software to everybody. I find that unlikely when "AB testing" and similar practices are are commonly used. Facebook is very strongly involved with "targeted" services…

If we're talking about mobile apps, it seems more likely that they would send the same software to everyone and just turn on these features being tested by sending some activation signal from a central coordinating service, or perhaps including it in some web content that the app might use. That seems much easier than actually distributing different apps.

> more likely

My point is that guessing without actual data isn't evidence. It's easy to speculate and guess at what we think is going on, but it's a bad idea to assume any particular speculation is right in the best situations. It's foolish when the subject of the investigation's core business model is based on sending different things to specifically targeted groups.

> just turn on these features

Perhaps. There are many ways a feature like this could be implemented. See the various obfuscated code contests for extreme examples of how functionality can be hidden in a program. This just means network logs from different clients are also needed, in addition to hashes of binaries.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#287

Post by anigbrowl »

bogomipz wrote: post #21
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. For many people it's their primary communication platform, and things like this are to a large extent driven by demand for such features in the wake of previous tragedies/disasters, after setting up impromptu groups or check-in mechanisms. It's not a simple problem to solve. Now I don't think they're doing it very well and the fact that it's subject to the typical feature creep is a problem, but then feature…

>"and things like this are to a large extent driven by demand for such features in the wake of previous tragedies/disasters, after setting up impromptu groups or check-in mechanisms" Do you have a citation for this claim that 'FB is just answering the demand'? >"It's not a simple problem to solve." Who asked them to solve it?

Because I've seen people using ad-hoc organizing strategies on social media after previous disasters and and I've also seen people expressing desire for features. People and companies don't need to be asked in formal terms to solve problems, but often choose to offer tools in response to the a perceived demand for such.

I'm not obliged to provide citations for every personal observation I make in a short comment, or indeed in a long one. Try being less rude in future interactions.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#288

Post by mmirate »

mikeash wrote: post #234
jdietrich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 500 people were directly endangered by this incident. The Safety Check alert seems to extend well beyond Greater London, so at least 9 million people. That gives us an approximate false positive rate of 99.995%. Is that reasonable or proportionate? Does it actually provide useful information? Is it likely to quell unfounded fears and provide genuine reassurance? As tragic as this incident was, it affected a sin…

I'm puzzled by this idea that social norms were "safe by default" until social media came along. It's certainly not my experience. When some high-profile event happens in the area, people check in and worry if they don't hear from you. It's been like this since long before Facebook was a thing. This looks like yet another case of nerds assuming the entire world thinks and acts like we do. Yes, worrying about someone…

> No, none of this actually influences how normal people think and act.

Well that's bloody stupid and innumerate of them. Surely, enabling such vices can't be good in the long-term.

... and how, again, are these people able to acquire positions of power such that we still have to care-about/interact-with them?

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#289

Post by mikeash »

mmirate wrote: post #288
mikeash wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm puzzled by this idea that social norms were "safe by default" until social media came along. It's certainly not my experience. When some high-profile event happens in the area, people check in and worry if they don't hear from you. It's been like this since long before Facebook was a thing. This looks like yet another case of nerds assuming the entire world thinks and acts like we do. Yes, worrying about someone…

> No, none of this actually influences how normal people think and act. Well that's bloody stupid and innumerate of them. Surely, enabling such vices can't be good in the long-term. ... and how, again, are these people able to acquire positions of power such that we still have to care-about/interact-with them?

Turns out that having a solid logical understanding of the risks of accidental death is more or less uncorrelated with having the sort of people skills which allow a person to attain positions of power.

Re: Facebook’s Safety Check is a stress-inducing flip of social norms

#290

Post by AlexandrB »

ryandrake wrote: post #252
AlexandrB wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If FB OR ANY other entiry gets you so upset then stop using it. I posted this in another reply, but that's effectively impossible. Facebook collects data on you from friends and family that use it. How do you suggest I stop that? What about Facebooks's tracking code all over the internet? Know a foolproof way to block that too?

If you stop using Facebook, why would you care if they collect data on you from friends? How is what they do with it affecting you? You're not using their product! You know how often I wake up worried about what some company I don't do business with knows about me? Never.

> If you stop using Facebook, why would you care if they collect data on you from friends?

I think it comes from growing up in the USSR, where the threat of the government showing up at your door because of something you said was very real. What no one in the US seems to appreciate is that even a stable country is only one or two major crises from being in the same situation. This is surprising because McCarthyism[1] happened a mere 70 years ago - a blink of an eye by historical standards.

Do you really think that under a Neo-McCarthy government any information Facebook has about you would be kept private? That Facebook's precious social graph or Google's archive of your search history wouldn't be used against you? I think that's naive.

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

Post reply on HN