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

I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 493 posts

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#441

Post by mchusma »

sneak wrote: post #74
mchusma wrote: post #49

I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…

It's not about users being outraged about what they can read. "Those other people are idiots and will kill us all without some rules" is a basic human conceit. These people calling for censorship on Facebook don't want to see that stuff, sure, but way more importantly they want FB to censor so that other people CAN'T read that stuff. They think that if they shout loud enough, they will get to decide what other, more…

Thanks for the follow up.

I agree that people want to adjust what other people can read, but this is where Facebook can really sidestep this by making things user preferences. Because it sounds strange to campaign to force Facebook to "override a person's explicit preferences about what to show/hide".

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#442

Post by mchusma »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #362
at_a_remove wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that word "just." Whenever I see "just" in some kind of kind of technical demand in the first line, I immediately know that there's a lot of stuff to unpack. Here, you have requested something fairly close to a general AI which understands both written language, images, and even more fun, images of language. Cartoon violence right on down to "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" And will quoting Henry II…

They already have processes in place to flag and remove covid information and violent content, so you obviously don't need general AI.

Yes thank you. My examples were explicitly things that they already do in production. They were not random examples.

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#443

Post by [deleted] »

FemmeAndroid wrote: post #327
nightski wrote: post #126

I respect his decision. But I for one do not want our president, no matter who she or he is to be censored. I want to know exactly what they are saying and when. That includes any government official for that matter because it directly affects my voting decisions and actions.

So if you're against censoring any government official, was Facebook wrong to remove posts from Myanmar's military leaders inciting a genocide? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/world/asia/myanmar-genoci...

[deleted]

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#444

Post by mchusma »

anonymousab wrote: post #129
mchusma wrote: post #49

I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…

Defaults are important because, fundamentally, misinformation and superstition spread faster, farther and stronger than the truth, with much more staying power. There's also the practical problem with social networks - within a degree or two of connections, you'll at least have some people who are part of communities covered by your own blocks. But it is in Facebook's interests to show you those communities and exten…

Yes defaults matter, and people will campaign heavily for the default settings, but perfect can't be the enemy of good and I can't see how this is worse.

I think its not only possible but relatively easy to have user settings that allow people to toggle on/off "1) Facebook not showing them content from friends even if it violates their own content settings".

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#445

Post by satyrnein »

Stupulous wrote: post #408
satyrnein wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get a quick hit of superiority when you agreed that "those" people are stupid, or did you consider that divisive?

From this thread it would appear that one is either a hypocrite for complaining about something they participate in or arrogant for complaining about something they don't. Here, both. It seems like a needless exercise to classify which type each person is. We can just take both cases with a grain of salt, address their points skeptically, and move on from doing psych evals on a couple sentences about something else.

My comment was probably too snarky, but do we not have a duty to at least gently push back against our in-group labeling the out-group as stupid?

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#446

Post by majewsky »

thomasfedb wrote: post #116
majewsky wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obviously staying is not a stance either This is not obvious to me.

I think the suggestion here is: if you are in a position to leave your job, and you do not, then than is implicit support for your employer.

Ah sorry, I think I parsed this wrong. I thought it meant "no stance" instead of "not much of a stance".

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#447

Post by neves »

jimmaswell wrote: post #382
neves wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the right thing to do. Facebook won't change by inside. Zuck will change his behavior when he feels the pain in his pocket. Every decent person must quit now. Quit. Now.

Everyone who thinks noteworthy public statements shouldn't be removed is a bad person according to you?

This is just one more specific problem. FB is nocive for the world. If you stay there, you are an accomplice.

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#448

Post by dredmorbius »

mchusma wrote: post #49

I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…

Because when you operate at a scale measured in billions of souls, impacts and consequences are neither inconsequential nor personal. Neither are remediations and mitigations.

You find lone actors committing mass killings:

"New Zealand mosque shooter broadcast slaughter on Facebook"

https://apnews.com/ce9e1d267af149dab40e3e5391254530

You find genocides:

"A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

You find radicalisation:

"Prosecutors say Dylann Roof ‘self-radicalized’ online, wrote another manifesto in jail"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/2...

You find disinformation with global consequences:

"How fear of the unknown sows disinformation during a pandemic"

https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/4/10/21201986/misinform...

Yes, the examples listed include more than Facebook, but Facebook, and its "they trust me, dumb fucks" unitary executive (https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuck...) is very much at the. heart of the problem.

Or, as some may better recognise the notion, "with great power comes great responsibility". Facebook and Zuckerberg consistently shirk theirs, and externalise the concommitant costs.

Anticipating the usual rebuttal that Facebook could not operate if it were required to act responsibly: if an organisation cannot exist or operate at scale without actively harming society, then it shouldn't exist.

The "individual responsibility" argument, going back to 1970s anti-littering campaigns and the crying (fake) Indian (fake) TV advert (and before), are corporate gambits to shirk their own obligations:

Annie Leonard, "Moving from Individual Change to Societal Change" (2013) [pdf]

http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-fro...

Don't buy it.

Re: I'm resigning from my job at Facebook

#449

Post by snarfy »

luckylion wrote: post #372
snarfy wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property can be replaced. People cannot. In my state it is illegal to protect property with deadly force. They have to threaten your life before you can shoot.

Out of interest, which country is that? Germany requires proportionality, e.g. you obviously can't shoot people because they try to steal candy, but you can very much protect your car. I have zero objections to that. You will not get money from an insurance company if somebody robs you or breaks into your house to clean the place out. It's really not "what do you care, it's only money, a human life cannot be replaced…

It's the USA. Some states you can shoot trespassers. Others, like mine generally require a life threatening situation before deadly force is authorized.
Post reply on HN