Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#791

Post by nradov » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:46 AM UTC

beachy wrote: post #783

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here.

How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#792

Post by pwdisswordfish2 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:50 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #764

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enrishing content from your friends and family." Well, it is someone else's website. What do you expect Zuckerberg has his own interests in mind. In 2020, it is still too difficult for everyone to set up their own website, so they settle for a page on someone else's. If exchanging content with friends and family (not swaths of the public who visit…

Email exists. Wordpress has free site hosting. SMS is ad free. If people wanted to create a free webpage for friends and family to see there are loads of options. The problem is that, generally speaking, most people do not find the value proposition as a Facebook replacement compelling.

Where are you getting this idea of "Facebook replacement"?

You introduce your own idea, then shoot it down.

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

Facebook does not provide software to set up small overlay networks.

Nor is the business of Facebook to provide messaging or free web pages. That is just bait. The business of Facebook is providing a way to advertise to targeted audiences within the billions of people who visit Facebook. That is what people pay for. It is a website with billions of daily visitors.

Unless you have a webite with billions of visitors then you are not competing with Facebook.

A small overlay network is not a website, it is a computer network. It does not have a large audience because the number of nodes is small. It is an interface you see when you type ifconfig or ip addr, not an email server, a blog website or an SMS provider. You could could use it for those things or you could use it for other things, anything you can do on a LAN.

It makes zero difference what you think people want. This is not a popularity contest of any sort. If you want to argue against the premise of my comment then you need to argue that small, personally-managed overlay networks and peer to peer connections are less efficient for sharing content with friends and family than using a public website, subject to "curation" and "censorship".

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#793

Post by Frost1x » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:50 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #791

beachy wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here. How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.

>Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.

If they actually pay their taxes, they all do.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#794

Post by DevKoala » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:50 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Why are you asking third parties to conduct this research? Why isn’t this an initiative driven by an internal team? Where applications for this program advertised outside of Facebook? Is $2M realistic for this research? I know I wouldn’t be enthused considering my total compensation. Do you expect top quality researchers to apply?

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#795

Post by tomrod » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:50 AM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #786

inetknght wrote: post #749

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They're based on users voluntarily giving payment for services rendered and, importantly, being satisfied with the transaction.

Which company uses that business model and has a size comparable to Facebook?

Apple.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#796

Post by alpacaillama » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #791

beachy wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here. How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.

This is classic whataboutism. What does people being led to believe that fat was healthy have to do with Facebook’s deliberate inability to make their content less divisive

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#797

Post by throwaway77665 » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:51 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

This may come off as condescending, but I'm honestly just curious.

From the outside looking in, it seems as though you are paid to drink cool-aid and paint FB in a positive light. How does one get to be in your position? What are the qualifications for your job?

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#798

Post by blonobo » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Your entire reply sounds like gaslighting and enabling. Minimizing reponsibility and deflecting.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#799

Post by alpacaillama » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

guy_ro wrote: post #758

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundam…

Would you care to post the same stats but updated for 2020 then? Also i see that this is statement is also copy pasted on your twitter so I have a hard time believing you actually do read this feedback and didn’t just post This comment as damage control.

Re: Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

#800

Post by waheoo » Wed, May 27, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #791

beachy wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential th…

10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here. How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.

Hey you guys, I found one, I found a jumper.