31–40 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know of any successful and "big" companies that follow the structure?
Big according to who? Purism is a relevant example[1]. [1] https://puri.sm/posts/purism-now-a-social-purpose-corporatio...
I think the right steps are already being taken. Breaking up Facebook would just decentralize the problem up and make it impossible to solve. At least with Facebook everything is in one place, and they have the money and resources to fix things.
A heavily-recycled story that's been making the rounds since at least 2017. No matter, have to keep the outrage machine going to drive traffic!
> Zuck has always believed that connecting everyone on earth was a mission so important that it justified any action necessary to accomplish it. Anytime someone starts telling you that their end is so noble it justifies any means, you should run away from them as fast as you possibly can.
A very relevant article from Ted Chiang: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-dang...
"Consider: Who pursues their goals with monomaniacal focus, oblivious to the possibility of negative consequences? Who adopts a scorched-earth approach to increasing market share? This hypothetical strawberry-picking AI does what every tech startup wishes it could do — grows at an exponential rate and destroys its competitors until it’s achieved an absolute monopoly. The idea of superintelligence is such a poorly defined notion that one could envision it taking almost any form with equal justification: a benevolent genie that solves all the world’s problems, or a mathematician that spends all its time proving theorems so abstract that humans can’t even understand them. But when Silicon Valley tries to imagine superintelligence, what it comes up with is no-holds-barred capitalism."
I think the right steps are already being taken. Breaking up Facebook would just decentralize the problem up and make it impossible to solve. At least with Facebook everything is in one place, and they have the money and resources to fix things.
Honestly curious: what steps do you see that are being taken?
> Zuck has always believed that connecting everyone on earth was a mission so important that it justified any action necessary to accomplish it. Anytime someone starts telling you that their end is so noble it justifies any means, you should run away from them as fast as you possibly can.
It's no wonder that folks in the valley are so fascinated with AIs running amok and turning the world into a paperclip factory, because apparently that has been Facebooks business model from the start. A very relevant article from Ted Chiang: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-dang... "Consider: Who pursues their goals with monomaniacal focus, oblivious to the possibility of negative consequences…
Maybe this research is wrong - but I'd like to see any research if Facebook fake news did really have any influence at all.
Is it feasible to create a corporate structure that would encourage it to act with the public interest in mind? Are there any known patterns, research, or tries? My very ill-informed mind is thinking of a parent-child structure where the parent gets to veto and only veto decisions made by its children that may be harmful for the general public.
I'm reading all the time about how fake news on Facebook supposedly influenced the elections, but I haven't heard of any factual confirmation of that. Did it really happen? Did somebody research that? How much influence did they find? I have seen research that says convincing people campaigning is pretty much hopeless - they'd nod to ads they agree with and ignore ones they disagree with, but won't change their minds…
It's meaningless, sensational claims all the way down.