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

Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#61

Post by dontreact »

prolikewh0a wrote: post #58
dontreact wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of this is attributable to Facebook? Also yes, Genocide is terrible. But the amount of people that cigarettes kill every year is orders of magnitudes more than this. That’s the thing: tobacco execs are still around! Making a product that literally kills millions of people every year. The only reason more outrage isn’t targeted at them is I think we believe that with enough backlash, we can change the situati…

>Also yes, Genocide is terrible. But the amount of people that cigarettes kill every year is orders of magnitudes more than this. Many people are dead, the number comparisons don't really matter. They're both evil, that's really it.

I think the world is too complex now to think in such absolute terms. Scale matters a lot. Yes we should try to avoid anyone dying and even a single death is too many. But as evil grows more indirect and subtle, you have to be aware of the details and the scale to pay attention to the right thing. Especially when the role of Facebook in this was more indirect (how much is the Genocide attributable to the Myanmar government and the existence of the internet vs. Facebook?)

The role of Tobacco companies is much more direct (well established link between cigarettes and death), and the scale is far greater.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#62

Post by emtel »

cryoshon wrote: post #6

perhaps this is an incendiary comment, but i really do wonder what all of the HN facebook employees are telling themselves to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by this latest scandal wherein facebook paid for smear campaigns to distract from their own dirty laundry. every time i have encountered these people on HN, they've portrayed a cultlike naivety regarding their organization's actions. they always allude…

Speaking as a former employee (who left for personal reasons), stories like this which compare facebook to a product that literally causes cancer make it much _easier_ to ignore criticism of the company. Once you see your umpteenth story about how facebook is the biggest force for evil in history its pretty easy to tune everything out.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#63

Post by DoreenMichele »

cryoshon wrote: post #6

perhaps this is an incendiary comment, but i really do wonder what all of the HN facebook employees are telling themselves to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by this latest scandal wherein facebook paid for smear campaigns to distract from their own dirty laundry. every time i have encountered these people on HN, they've portrayed a cultlike naivety regarding their organization's actions. they always allude…

A. Most people aren't really that worried about ethics. They are more worried about having a job.

B. Humans are really talented at counting the good something does for themselves/their people and discounting the harm it does others. See racism, sexism, nationalism etc.

C. The primary reason FB is getting so much flak is because it's gotten so big. There are many people who derive some kind of benefit from it or it wouldn't be that big.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#64

Post by lallysingh »

austenallred wrote: post #53
bilbo0s wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty far apart to be honest. What FB and Suu Kyi do in Myanmar is terrible, but they would have to replicate the same genocide in every nation across the globe to match the body count of the tobacco guys. (Which they may manage to do in the future. Who knows? But to date they are just not there yet to be perfectly frank.)

It really doesn’t make sense to me that the argument is basically this: “The x military shared anti-y Facebook posts, then caused a genocide of the y people.” And Facebook is at fault? Do we really expect Facebook to police speech at that level, or should we not place the blame with the military? Those posts came from .0000066% of Facebook’s users. If you’re Facebook how do you effectively police that?

Hey those kids chose to smoke those Camels! How's the cigarette company responsible?

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#65

Post by ajcodez »

I see some parallels with “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Facebook doesn’t share awful hate speech, people share awful hate speech. Half of us will be like “not enough, take away Facebook” and the other half will be like “some people suck, but I should have Facebook”.

I think the answer is to tag content using ML and then allow users to apply filters. It could be a “protect me” button in settings. I’m assuming most hate speech is in image and video format with text in the image but Facebook can probably figure that out with less than $1B worth of dev hours. It’s easy to delay sharing into “protect me” enabled news feeds until after processing and tagging.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#66

Post by whatshisface »

mockindignant wrote: post #5
whatshisface wrote: post #2

I wish other companies could get the same kind of scrutiny as Facebook. For some reason while most scandals are pushed down and quickly forgotten, Facebook is being dragged around for all its worth. Maybe they weren't planting enough stories.

Which companies do you refer? I am fine with other companies facing public backlash for their actions just like Facebook is now if they are doing things as shady as Facebook.

Another commenter mentioned Equifax, which I agree is a good example. They have done a lot more to damage me than Facebook could hope to. (I don't have a choice about being in Equifax's database, but at least I can block the little informants on websites I visit.)

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#67

Post by whatshisface »

ajcodez wrote: post #65

I see some parallels with “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Facebook doesn’t share awful hate speech, people share awful hate speech. Half of us will be like “not enough, take away Facebook” and the other half will be like “some people suck, but I should have Facebook”. I think the answer is to tag content using ML and then allow users to apply filters. It could be a “protect me” button in settings. I’m a…

Very few people are against hate speech, most people are only against hate speech that targets groups they feel alligned with. As a result you would see many people turn the switch on only to go and write a diatrabe against a group that they feel is a fair target.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#68

Post by HillaryBriss »

ggggtez wrote: post #59
fatjokes wrote: post #8

Are you f-ing kidding me? Until 90%+ of FB users start dropping dead because of lung cancer then that statement is complete garbage. EDIT: a lot of people are taking my statement as meaning not to criticize Facebook. That is not it at all! It just means not to lose perspective. At least I still consider tobacco to be far worse, directly causing ~7M deaths annually with no visible benefit. EDIT 2: Genuine question: ha…

For suggested reading, I recommend reading about the Arab Spring, where social networks were linked to populist overthrow of dictators in the middle east and northern Africa. I also suggest reading about Whatsapp killings in India. The evidence out there suggests that social networks are being used to great effect to mobilize revolutions, mobs, and other "populist" movements, for better or worse. These days, it seems…

If Clinton had won, FB would have avoided this scrutiny.

The lesson FB execs are learning is that FB must filter all of its content very carefully so that the electorate is nudged more forcefully toward the correct candidate. Either that, or, more likely, just keep doing whatever makes the most money.

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#69

Post by [deleted] »

chillacy wrote: post #51
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

Clickbait. I think the actual story was already posted a few days back. I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison. Facebook does a lot for which it should be criticized, but it feels like we're just beating on a dead horse. It's also hilarious that someone would be so critical of Facebook all while including their share button in the same article. Apparentl…

> Oh, my God. Using an Android phone is like paying for dinner with a Discover card. It’s like saying, “Don’t have sex with me.” It’s the ultimate prophylactic that says “I should be ...” > “I should be screened out of the gene pool.” If you use an Android phone or have a Discover card, your family tree should come to an end. Yea I’m gonna go with purposefully inciting reactions online for more clicks.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s top execs ‘make tobacco executives look like Mr. Rogers’

#70

Post by ajcodez »

whatshisface wrote: post #67
ajcodez wrote: post #65

I see some parallels with “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Facebook doesn’t share awful hate speech, people share awful hate speech. Half of us will be like “not enough, take away Facebook” and the other half will be like “some people suck, but I should have Facebook”. I think the answer is to tag content using ML and then allow users to apply filters. It could be a “protect me” button in settings. I’m a…

Very few people are against hate speech, most people are only against hate speech that targets groups they feel alligned with. As a result you would see many people turn the switch on only to go and write a diatrabe against a group that they feel is a fair target.

I certainly don’t want hateful media in my news feed. In my proposed solution nothing stops you from posting hate speech but it’s one button to filter all hate speech on the receiving end. I would suspect that hate speech gets fantastic engagement and wider audience than required.
Post reply on HN