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

Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by gisely »

srj wrote: post #867
Zandikar wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook having a "VP of Integrity" is laughable. They must have workshopped it and discovered "Minister of Truth" was a bit too on the nose.

Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?

But of course! Every company should have a VP of Integrity, especially Facebook. Creating the impression of trustworthiness while profiting from lies is important at any company. At Facebook it’s the core business.

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

#902

Post by rmrfstar »

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…

> Criticism and scrutiny are always welcome

Genuine question here.

We have entered an era in which non-state actors like Facebook have power that was once the exclusive domain of governments [1]. Facebook understands this, and justifiably views itself as a quasi-government [2].

I would really like to understand Facebook’s theory of governance. If I want to understand my own government, I can read the Federalist papers. These documents articulate an understanding of history and a positive view of the appropriate role of government in society. I can use these documents to help myself evaluate a particular government action in light of the purpose of government and the risks inherent in concentrated power.

Has Facebook published something like this? I struggle to understand Facebook’s internal view of it’s role in society and its concept of what “doing the right thing” means. Without some clear statement of governing principles, people will naturally gravitate to the view that Facebook is a cynical and sometimes petty [3] profit maximizer.

Without some statement of purpose and principles, it is hard to level criticism in a way that Facebook will find helpful or actionable. We are left to speculate about Facebook's intentions, instead of arguing that a certain outcome is inconsistent with its stated purpose.

[1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/blurred-lines-between-state-and-non...

[2] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerber...

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/facebooks-security-team-trac...

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

#903

Post by ThrustVectoring »

justapassenger wrote: post #647
munificent wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental flaw is this: The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads . Since ads are the primary way sites stay in business, they are obligated to fight against user agents or other intermediary systems. The ultimate problem is that Facebook doesn't want to show you good, enriching content from your friends and family. They want to show you ads. The good content is just…

> The primary content no user wants to see any every user agent would filter out is ads "no user"? Nope. People buy magazines, that are 90% ads. Subscribe to newsletters. Hunt for coupons. Watch home shopping channels. Etc, etc. There's large part of population that wants to see ads. Scammy and bad ads? No. Good and relevant ads? A LOT of people do want them. Even tech-folks, who claim that ads are worst thing for hu…

There's a fundamental mismatch between how consumers value ads shown to them and how advertising platforms value the ads.

Suppose there is a $100 product that produces $110 worth of value for a specific person and costs $50 to produce and deliver to them. To use economics terms, there's a $10 consumer surplus here, and a $50 producer surplus. The consumer willingness to see the ad is proportional to the consumer surplus, while the producer's willingness to pay for ad placement is proportional to producer surplus.

This is a fundamental divergence in interests; because the ad networks are paid by producers, they'll serve the ads that tend to make ad buyers the most money, not the ads that best enrich the viewers' lives.

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

#904

Post by rndgermandude »

creato wrote: post #891
nradov wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. That's a horrible example, I don't think that is even remotely comparable to swaying the population into burning down dozens (hundreds?) of cell towers or accusing Bill Gates of starting the coronavirus pandemic.

Would literal witchhunts be a better example? Or hunting "communists"? Or Young Earth creationsim? The "idea" that your skintone and level of intelligence are "biologically" linked? Or Jet fuel cannot melt steal beams and 9/11 was an inside job? And don't even get me started about that fake moon landing... Oh no... I can hear an airplane, here come the chemtrails.

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

#905

Post by evgen »

1123581321 wrote: post #853
BubRoss wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer either of his questions.

His work history is on LinkedIn. VP Integrity is essentially an executive product management role so qualifications would be along those lines. Edit: LinkedIn says he was an engineering manager, then took a series of roles culminating in a data startup that got him into Facebook in the current role.

'A data startup'? How very generous of you. He co-founded a spyware company that was bought by Facebook to discover what other companies/apps to buy or clone.

You do not get to the position he has at Facebook by having either ethics or morals. Having seen this up close at Facebook HQ I can assure you that everyone at VP level or above there knows what they are doing, knows the long-term consequences, and simply does not care because the paycheck is far too large for simple ethics to enter into the discussion.

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

#906

Post by FemmeAndroid »

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…

Meta question. How is this post from a user created 6 hours ago, with 66 Karma at the top of this comment section? This is particularly interesting since just this week, TripleByte’s CEO’s top level comments were buried. Is there some kind of change or is this really the naturally occurring top comment?

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

#907

Post by Nevermark »

john_minsk wrote: post #892
alpacaillama wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t expect them to come out with a perfect solution but if they can’t fix it and no one else can, but they still contribute to it I don’t see how why they should be above criticism and reproach? Also the article mentions that even though they had they option to reduce it, they actively chose not to. How is this not something that I shod be critical of? Why is growth above everything else important? What if they d…

If no one else can fix it - we should criticise with a remark that BTW this is not fixable at the moment Otherwise: Earth's gravity is too strong. Planes use too much fuel. Let's criticise Earth...

We are talking about existential threats to humanity. It might be hard to believe but humans ability to bring about bad outcomes is growing at a very fast pace.

Key players like Facebook throwing in the towel because “we don’t see an easy way to stop contributing to problems that are growing in size and can potentially destabilize democracies, world ecosystems, or a few decades from now hunan existence” is not an option.

The problems we have today are growing exponentially in seriousness. Human beings need to learn to get along in ways they never needed to before both due to resource stress and technological powers we never had before.

Facebook’s amplification of many human weaknesses is only one of many risk factors. But I don’t think many young people realize how easily humans have fallen into disasters in the past, which amplified by progress could easily become existential today.

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

#908

Post by 2019-nCoV »

creato wrote: post #898
2019-nCoV wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the misleading dietary advice was objectively worse. How many needless deaths lost to the likes of diabetes and heart disease. The ramifications of the replication crisis (of which social media censorship also runs afoul) run much deeper.

I think you are knowingly missing the point. Nutritional experts disagreed among themselves, and probably still do. Is there even a single 5G engineer that will take up the cause of 5G causing coronavirus? How about an immunologist that will claim Bill Gates is trying to inject people with microchips delivered in vaccines?

Which is why it's a non-sequitur. Any well-adjusted adult with a modicum of common sense can see through such claims. Cults and conspiracies flourished long before FB's existence, as they will after. Removing such content just validates it in their minds — it must be true that's why "the corporations" insist on covering it up!

Most of the west has learnt that we should not penalise drug addicts. We treat the underlying problems that brought about their habitual use. The need to self-medicate disappears.

Like the war on drugs failed, so too shall the war on misinformation. The solution is tending for the human condition that leads one to not only believe, but want to believe, in these fantasies.

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

#910

Post by mola »

rat9988 wrote: post #882
mola wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have an interest in the outcome of the research, why should we trust you to conduct or fund it properly? Your track record is terrible. The fact you are throwing around dubious research as facts is crazy. I'm sorry, but really, there's no reason to believe a word a you say. You get paid from Facebook, Facebook lied again and again, how on earth do you expect people to take you seriously? Your job and title is to…

>why should we trust you to conduct or fund it properly? You are welcome to conduct research or fund it. You can even help current research by criticizing their research in its substance, or engage yourself politically (at least by voting) so we can have more and better research about the topic.

I do, but that's irrelevant to the fact the corporate funded research is used to muddy the waters and make reality even less accessible than it is.

It's not the lack of research that's a problem, it's the weaponization of research.

Post reply on HN