An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor • Hacker News Board

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#31

Post by lumberjack » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #9

x3tm wrote: post #2

What I struggle to understand is how could esteemed AI researchers like LeCun and many others work for such a company to give it even more powers and edge? How can they justify this as scientists? The huge influx of money into research (here AI, but could be anything in the future) combined with the disfunctions of academia is very troubling.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair )

It is not just that. Some people in this field just have questionable ethics, unfortunately. Some are just childish and have this close minded ignorant macho attitude that though men, as they style themselves, should not care about ethics. Then there others who just don't care either way as long as they get paid to play with their toys.

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#32

Post by sjcsjc » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

jrbuhl wrote: post #21

x3tm wrote: post #2

What I struggle to understand is how could esteemed AI researchers like LeCun and many others work for such a company to give it even more powers and edge? How can they justify this as scientists? The huge influx of money into research (here AI, but could be anything in the future) combined with the disfunctions of academia is very troubling.

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department

https://genius.com/Tom-lehrer-wernher-von-braun-lyrics

... for the uninitiated

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#33

Post by JohnJamesRambo » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

These large dominating companies are monopolies in every sense of the word and need to be broken up. The Bell System was broken up and didn't have a tenth of the tracking and control of people's lives that Google and Facebook do. Ma Bell didn't actively harm its users and cause depression. Ma Bell didn't collude with Russia to influence a presidential election and install a puppet president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/185/3/203/2915143 "Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study"

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#34

Post by komali2 » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:20 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #7

x3tm wrote: post #2

What I struggle to understand is how could esteemed AI researchers like LeCun and many others work for such a company to give it even more powers and edge? How can they justify this as scientists? The huge influx of money into research (here AI, but could be anything in the future) combined with the disfunctions of academia is very troubling.

Simple, not everyone share the same concern regarding privacy or those sjw stuff, moreover fb has vast amount of data and also funding, it's very suitable for AI research. Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

By using the term "sjw" I think you significantly diminish the strength of your argument. Why did you choose that word?

Is privacy only the concern of social justice warriors? Have you met rural American preppers?

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#35

Post by danans » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

> Let’s examine the evidence. At its peak the planet’s fourth most valuable company, and arguably its most influential, is controlled almost entirely by a young man with the charisma of a geometry T.A.

Does the writer really think a more charismatic founder would have changed the outcome for the better, or that more charisma would have led Zuckerberg to make different choices?

Let's not forget that history is scarred from the manipulations of charismatic leaders.

This sounds rather like the old nerd/geek/greasy-grime bashing trope trotted out again.

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#36

Post by balabaster » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #28

perfmode wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were able to do a lot of beneficial research because they didn’t have to deal with cumbersome regulations and roadblocks. And if they didn’t do it, someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities. Edit: If it isn’t clear, I am being sarcastic.

It depends how you see things. imho some things are intrinsically wrong, doing them because "someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities" doesn't change the fact that it's wrong in the first place. Just the same way that if something wrong is done by a lot of people it doesn't make it right (smoking, drinking &c.).

What if the alternative is to be shot yourself? Where do you morals stand then?

Unfortunately our morals are easily swayed when the alternative choice is death.

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#37

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

balabaster wrote: post #36

lm28469 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you see things. imho some things are intrinsically wrong, doing them because "someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities" doesn't change the fact that it's wrong in the first place. Just the same way that if something wrong is done by a lot of people it doesn't make it right (smoking, drinking &c.).

What if the alternative is to be shot yourself? Where do you morals stand then? Unfortunately our morals are easily swayed when the alternative choice is death.

How is that relevant here?

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#38

Post by zimablue » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #7

x3tm wrote: post #2

What I struggle to understand is how could esteemed AI researchers like LeCun and many others work for such a company to give it even more powers and edge? How can they justify this as scientists? The huge influx of money into research (here AI, but could be anything in the future) combined with the disfunctions of academia is very troubling.

Simple, not everyone share the same concern regarding privacy or those sjw stuff, moreover fb has vast amount of data and also funding, it's very suitable for AI research. Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

SJW is a weird insult to use here, the outcry isn't anything to do with SJWs. FAANG in general are actually very pro SJW in the gender/racial sense, see Damore's firing, the twitter feed of senior devs at any of them.

They're the epitomy of the liberal elite, privacy is totally orthogonal as an issue.

You can say right now that "not everyone cares about privacy" and it seems reasonable, but in a decade or two it will sound like saying "not everyone cares about environmentalism" does now, it's ignorance that will slowly bear fruit.

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#39

Post by icebraining » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

sgt101 wrote: post #24

androidgirl wrote: post #10

I understand this is a manifesto, but really the dialogue around Facebook and social media has truly become unhinged. Facebook is just a symptom, it seems What is there to be _done_? Pandora's box is open, so to speak. If Facebook disappeared overnight, are we really going to assume the problems they're in are going to go away? Everyone is potentially connected to everyone, everywhere, on the entire planet. There has…

There is a solution: all sites (above a scale of say 1m users) must offer a zero advertising, zero tracking account option at a yearly fee of exactly advertising revenue per user per year. Most people would not take this; but rich people would. The top 1%? Top 5%? This would cripple the monopoly model and open the market.

How would that cripple the monopoly model?

Re: An Anti-Facebook Manifesto, by an Early Facebook Investor

#40

Post by PavlovsCat » Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #7

x3tm wrote: post #2

What I struggle to understand is how could esteemed AI researchers like LeCun and many others work for such a company to give it even more powers and edge? How can they justify this as scientists? The huge influx of money into research (here AI, but could be anything in the future) combined with the disfunctions of academia is very troubling.

Simple, not everyone share the same concern regarding privacy or those sjw stuff, moreover fb has vast amount of data and also funding, it's very suitable for AI research. Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

> Even if he refuse to work with fb, pretty sure a lot of other people will be happy to replace.

Good for them. When I see a dog turd on the sidewalk, I don't step into it because otherwise, other people might. I make sure to not step into it for purely personal reasons -- it's me and my shoes that matter, not the dog turd regardless of its ambitions, nor people who might not pay attention to where they're walking.