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

Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 699 posts

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#91

Post by BobbyJo »

jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints. It's all well and good that they want to make Facebook safe and healthy, and I honestly believe plenty of people working there are trying to do just that. However, they are operating under the constraint that they cannot move backwards on profits, and therefore engagement.

Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels. You may try very hard, and very sincerely, but it's fool's errand.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#92

Post by imilk »

mbesto wrote: post #47

> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? > If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? This is HILARIOUSLY out of touch with reality. You don't call someone a whistleblower if the reports they leaked were TRANSP…

Not to mention that they have been anything but transparent with their research. What he said is pretty much a complete lie.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/technology/facebook-popul...

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#93

Post by chillacy »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #29
hokumguru wrote: post #18

Honestly am I the only one that doesn’t think that Facebook is that bad? Some of those points that he makes really should make you stop and think.

Which points made you stop and think

> if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?

I have a kind of unpopular belief that we'd still have similar polarization if misinfo were just distributed on Fox + MSNBC, websites, and Twitter.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#94

Post by ziftface »

jedberg wrote: post #68

I'm having a hard time reconciling all this right now. On the one hand, from the outside, I can see the actions that Facebook takes and they seem awfully guilty of what they are accused of. But on the other hand, I personally know and have previously worked with some of the people who work on trust and safety, specifically for kids. Good people who have kids of their own and who care about protecting people, especial…

Don't you think it's more likely that he's just using these projects to garner some goodwill and sympathy?

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#95

Post by [deleted] »

sayonaraman wrote: post #53
cracell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok... First off there's no way Zuckerberg wrote this. Might've been involved but these are the words of a marketing team working with a legal team. Secondly why do you see Zuckerberg as a great CEO?

so many CEOs would come back with tail tucked between their legs when there is an aggressive PR attack, it's so refreshing to see someone unapologetic for a change, standing their ground against blatant lies and angry mobs with pitchforks. This gives hope in the American future.

[deleted]

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#96

Post by slg »

skissane wrote: post #73

> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? That's a point I've made myself before, and I think there is some truth to it. Social media can't explain the high and increasing degree of US political polarisation, beca…

>The real explanation must lie in other aspects of US culture, or the US political system

First-past-the-post voting leads to a two party system which leads to more polarization. If you have multiple political parties, polarization can only go so far because there will be centrist groups working against polarization. In the US, there is no force pushing for centrism.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#97

Post by marstall »

jimkleiber wrote: post #50

For me, it's the almost complete lack of guilt or awareness that his company has caused pain and even death. Yes, FB and its acquisitions have brought many many good things to my life and to the lives of others. They have also brought a lot of pain to me and to others as well. No service only provides good. He doesn't seem to say this. Instead of him trying to remind us "we do good things" I wish he would also say "a…

Well phrased. He needs to take the complaints of harm at face value and acknowledge their reality.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#99

Post by anon84827820 »

the reality is that people would stop using facebook if they really hated it that much, and yet it still has 2.5 billion MAUs. there's a very loud minority of people who keep screaming "facebook bad!" because the NYT told them to (because facebook is eating their lunch). facebook doesn't inject your brain with foreign chemicals, it doesn't hold a gun to your head and force you to scroll through your timeline. don't like using facebook? close your fucking web browser.

Re: Statement from Mark Zuckerberg

#100

Post by jtdev »

mbesto wrote: post #47

> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? > If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? This is HILARIOUSLY out of touch with reality. You don't call someone a whistleblower if the reports they leaked were TRANSP…

Nothing this “whistleblower” has said is revelatory… she’s stating things we already know. The question should be “why now?”.
Post reply on HN