What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#61

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:00 AM UTC

> For example, in 2018 we changed our ranking for News Feed to prioritize meaningful social interactions and deprioritize things like viral videos.

I wonder what happened in 2018

> [Cambridge Analytica] closed operations in 2018 in the course of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, although related firms still exist.[0]

I'm sorry, but if you're going to lead with a policy change that was made after pretty much the largest scandal in your company's history, I think you know you're doing something wrong. If you want to claim the moral high ground changes need to happen before they become scandals. It is okay to make mistakes. It is okay to fuck up big time. But this just feels disingenuous. The reason people like The Social Dilemma is because it is real people saying "sorry, we fucked up. We take the blame, but let's solve the problem." This response feels like a childish response of "We didn't fuck up, you did."

> We don't sell your information to anyone.

IIRC the movie didn't claim this. Most people criticizing FB aren't claiming this. FB is selling access to the data.

> just like any dating app, Amazon, Uber, and countless other consumer-facing apps

I'm reminded of my mom saying "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you?" I can't be the only one. Just because Netflix is guilty of similar crimes doesn't mean you're in the right. No one respects this defense.

This response is weak and does not feel genuine.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#62

Post by martingordon » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:02 AM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #46

wilkowskidom wrote: post #43

Stop upvoting this hot mess of Facebook marketing propaganda. There is more nuanced ways to discuss the impact and more importantly the societal cause of the cancer that is Facebook but it’s definitely not a PDF from their marketing team.

People may upvote the submission because they care about the discussion, not because they think Facebook response is good (I didn’t upvote myself, but that what I would do).

Yep, I submitted not because I agree with it (I actually think it's a pretty laughable response) but because I think it warrants discussion.

I would have gone with a more editorialized title but the submission guidelines prohibit it.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#63

Post by d3nj4l » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:02 AM UTC

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Apart from the bad points, posting a PDF press release in response to a documentary people watched on Netflix is kind of stupid. How many people who watched The Social Dilemma will actually see this press release, let alone evaluate its points?

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#64

Post by grandmczeb » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:03 AM UTC

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Your example is interesting because in retrospect Super Size Me was alarmist and unfair. Morgan Spurlock mislead viewers to believe that his health conditions were caused by McDonalds when they were in fact caused by alcoholism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-ala...

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#65

Post by elmomle » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:06 AM UTC

It seems to me that if your platform nurtured social conditions that cause an actual, literal genocide, you should immediately, radically rethink the whole way the platform works--or, safer still, just shut it down and use your power to lobby for legislation to stop a thing like that from ever happening again.

Instead, the answer was to trot out some absolutely inexcusable, banal platitudes. And now we get to see similar effects roiling the USA and seeping more and more into the world at large. The fact that they're continuing to tread out such platitudes this far in is simply indescribable. I understand the psychological foibles that can lead very smart people to deny the monstrosity of their own creations, but I am nevertheless filled with fathomless rage that Mark Zuckerberg prioritized his ego and his shareholders above the good of all mankind, whether that was conscious or driven simply by his unwillingness to accept the true nature of his creation.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#66

Post by junon » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

mattigames wrote: post #18

b_ocu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean via an explicit permission dialog. Not something hidden in the TOS/Privacy policy

One of those dialogs people click "ok" without reading because they are lazy or are in a rush looking something up.

"Yeah but it's not like they're banking on that, nobody thinks that far ahead."

If you've spent even a minute working in the marketing world, you'd know that yes, yes they do. They think exactly that far, and then about another 10 steps beyond that.

Those prompts are most definitely designed to be willed away by the user without allowing them to fully grok the consequences. Unfortunately, it's not measurable, provable, or enforcably illegal.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#67

Post by fwn » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:47 AM UTC

d3nj4l wrote: post #63

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

Apart from the bad points, posting a PDF press release in response to a documentary people watched on Netflix is kind of stupid. How many people who watched The Social Dilemma will actually see this press release, let alone evaluate its points?

Yes, it's probably bad from the perspective of how to best cool down criticism.

That aside it would be a very good thing for society if all companies started addressing stakeholder concerns and contributed constructively in the societal discourse around their actions.

edit: tempus

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#68

Post by reynard_le_faux » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:50 AM UTC

fn1 wrote: post #57

adim86 wrote: post #31

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you. This whole Press release is about the "Steps…

> If feels to me that FB is mega coorp where the people in it want to do better but the machine is so much bigger than the people in it they are currently lost on how to do it Maybe it's just that the whole concept - Algorithmic curation of content, instead of human editors - is flawed and impossible to fix. Maybe YouTube has the exact same problem only fewer clearnames and a higher barrier-to-entry (no text posts).…

It's not like traditional newspapers/outlets are good for people. Not necessarily the algorithms fault.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#69

Post by sbierwagen » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:50 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #8

joshribakoff wrote: post #6

The film explains that when they say “you are the product” they mean Facebook is selling a chance to influence your behavior. It’s an interesting perspective, but this PR piece from Facebook seems to willingly misinterpret this

"Influence your behavior" seems like an over dramatic description of "show me ads".

I am curious to hear what you think advertisements are supposed to do.

Re: What “The Social Dilemma” Gets Wrong [pdf]

#70

Post by godelski » Sat, Oct 03, 2020, 7:56 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #8

joshribakoff wrote: post #6

The film explains that when they say “you are the product” they mean Facebook is selling a chance to influence your behavior. It’s an interesting perspective, but this PR piece from Facebook seems to willingly misinterpret this

"Influence your behavior" seems like an over dramatic description of "show me ads".

The exact quote from the movie is changing "you are the product" to the product is

> the gradual, slight, imperceptible change in your behavior and perception that is the product

It is not hard to argue that an ad fits such a description. Ads change behavior. We don't just have ads to buy things, but we also have political ads. We have ads for charity. We have ads for religion. We have ads for mental health. We have ads for public awareness. There's this common argument that ads are just about selling you things but such an argument doesn't reflect reality and is often strange to find coming from people living in a country that is going through a major political election where they are being accosted by ads encouraging people to vote. Considering we've been doing this for a few hundred years, I'm pretty sure someone would have picked up on it being wasted money if ads didn't influence behavior.