5 ms·

Improve Facebook or Leave It

21 points by jarmitage 10y ago

Waterluvian 10y ago
I hope one day I'm so wealthy that I can use my source of livelihood to make a sociopolitical statement. Until that day, I'd much rather ensure that my children are safe and happy than to stand up against my employer's wrongdoings. (I don't work for Facebook. But I thought about how practically impossible it would be for me to do the "right thing" if it were my company)
- colordrops 10y ago
  Where do you live and what do you do for a living? If it's the SF Bay area and software, you have no excuse. Or any first world country doing a professional job for that matter.
  - Waterluvian 10y ago
    Canada. I'm not saying I would turn a blind eye if my company was doing something dangerous or illegal. But in that fuzzy zone of unethical, maybe illegal but maybe not... As awful as it sounds, my household has one income and it's not silicon valley amounts of money and it feels instinctive to protect my own above all else.
    - colordrops 10y ago
      I understand where you are coming from, as I'm part of a single income household with two children that is barely above water month to month. But I've actively made a choice to struggle a bit more financially rather than making potentially twice the salary at a less ethical company. It hurts sometimes, but for me personally, my mental health is much better and I enjoy my entire work day. I don't feel awkward in conversations when discussing what I do. I feel better looking my children in the eye and telling them to do the right thing. And in the end everyone is well fed and has a roof over their head and getting a proper education, so if I'm not keeping up with the other technorati in my supposed group, then so be it.
Kenji 10y ago
There are many reasons to leave facebook (as a user, at least, but arguably for employees too), but these have to be among the dumbest I've ever read. Ooh, let's boycott eachother for political opinions. Get a grip.
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  For what it's worth, aren't political opinions about what the practical applications of justice and goodness are? If you were going to boycott someone over anything, wouldn't it be those? If someone else's opinion falls within a reasonable spectrum from our own, it's fine to accept them. When the difference becomes great enough, you're obligated to reject those views. Where you draw the line is up to you, though there is often a societal consensus on what a reasonable Overton window is like. The problem with your argument is that you want everyone to get along, but you want them to do it regardless of extreme differences in how different people want to shape the good life. It's hard to cooperate with someone that fundamentally opposes everything you stand for at your core and, importantly(!), wants to impose their views on you. This is important because it is far easier to tolerate differences between groups that do not impose their views on each other, which is the situation in which I agree with you more often than not [1]. If you want everyone to get along, you need to show why on particular issues, or for overarching reasons, it's not worth rejecting each other. Otherwise, I find what you say hard to accept when examined below the merest surface. [1] A counter example would be a group that is murdering or mutilating its own members, and those members ask for help. That would be a clearly justified case for external intervention.
semicolon_storm 10y ago
One day, I hope to live in a world where people can disagree politically and not think the other side is the evil incarnate.
empressplay 10y ago
Blaming Facebook for the election result is like blaming the ocean for drownings.
- chiefalchemist 10y ago
  +1
rm999 10y ago
I'm not a fan of Trump or the way this election played out (or even facebook, really), but this article is absurd. >Because Facebook has multiple figures in leadership positions that supported Trump. Thiel vocally, Luckey surreptitiously. Thiel isn't in a leadership position at facebook (de facto or de jure - he's a board member who doesn't take a day-to-day role) and Luckey is about as marginalized as you can be within a company while maintaining contractual agreements. The real leadership of facebook seems genuinely progressive. Also, I'm not sure some employees supporting a mainstream politician is grounds for the company to be shaken up or disbanded (49% of voters supported Trump!). >Because Zuckerberg believes the fake news his platform elevates played no part in the election ... Because Facebook’s core product promotes the distribution of false information Nate Silver largely agrees: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185. And sure maybe it had some impact, but so did 50 other things going on. I'm not going to defend fake news and I think it's harmful to the election process and facebook, but this isn't a strong argument against facebook as a company. >Because Facebook shipped a racist feature in its core advertising product. A huge amount of advertising is targeted racially in a non-controversial way. This is a reality of advertising and I don't consider it racist. Facebook has made it clear it does not tolerate the illegal or discriminatory use of this feature.
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  > (49% of voters supported Trump!). No. Facts still matter. As of today, Trump has received just 46.6% of the vote.
golemotron 10y ago
Every time I read something this Manichean - something implying that the "good people" must climb over the barricades and vanquish the land of evil - Ride of the Valkyries plays in my head.
gressquel 10y ago
People still using facebook ? :-) Its end is nigh, the era of socialising will come to an end when people realize its not what we wanted. I will actually go as far as saying its one great app/idea away from going down. If someone made a proper app for creating events and it spread like wildfire attracting all the "kids", I think it would be game over for FB.com I dont think theres anything else holding me back. Events and messenger...
delegate 10y ago
Note that Facebook operates and has a similar influence in many more countries. Just like in the U.S., elections in many countries are affected by the 'quality' of the information being shared and distributed through Facebook. So Facebook - the people who work at Facebook - should promptly acknowledge its impact on public opinion and public perception (with the dangers that that implies) and immediately focus on finding solutions to these unexpected side-effects of social networks. Things like echo chambers, fear vortexes, fake news, calls to (useless) protest and so on. Social networks have the potential to generate serious unrest - as has been the case in many countries already, so these things should be taken very seriously - more than what Facebook is doing now.
- chiefalchemist 10y ago
  FYI the quality of information is defined by the minds that consume it. Information has zero value and rating until it comes face to face with the human mind. We need to stop blaming something of no value for the entities that are unwilling to study it. Time for The Kardashians? Check! Think about what I just read? Oh sorry. That's FB's fault? Really? We're advocating for mass ignorance and laziness? What's next? Blaming the super market because I buy soda, chips and processed food? Even when real food is right in front of me? Really?
  - delegate 10y ago
    > That's FB's fault? Since Facebook makes this communication possible (and profits greatly from it), it should also assume the responsibility for the side-effects of such communication. These effects exist and have consequences in the real world (sometimes violent) and if left unchecked things can quickly spiral out of control and lead to war. Yes, people should be smarter and not believe the memes on Facebook, but they aren't and there is no time to wait for everyone to get enlightened, so a more practical and constructive solution is needed. One such feature could be to provide 'alternative views' for posts - a sort of forced advertising - in which the views of the 'other' side are offered. A nice and interesting AI project, could save the world.. There's no one else who can do it, only Facebook.
vasilia 10y ago
I'm reading news about security/programming languages/new technologies here, but I don't know who is this guy. So, maybe someone can explain to me who is this guy and why I see this post on HN?
chiefalchemist 10y ago
Pro Nanny State nonsense. People need to be responsible and accountable. There's no room for mindlessness in a Democracy. Yes, FB needs to raise its bar. But that doesn't absolve the responsibilities of those who use it. This blame X for the decisions of Y is a false god. It needs to stop.

21 points by jarmitage 10y ago

I hope one day I'm so wealthy that I can use my source of livelihood to make a sociopolitical statement. Until that day, I'd much rather ensure that my children are safe and happy than to stand up against my employer's wrongdoings. (I don't work for Facebook. But I thought about how practically impossible it would be for me to do the "right thing" if it were my company)

colordrops 10y ago
Where do you live and what do you do for a living? If it's the SF Bay area and software, you have no excuse. Or any first world country doing a professional job for that matter.
- Waterluvian 10y ago
  Canada. I'm not saying I would turn a blind eye if my company was doing something dangerous or illegal. But in that fuzzy zone of unethical, maybe illegal but maybe not... As awful as it sounds, my household has one income and it's not silicon valley amounts of money and it feels instinctive to protect my own above all else.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    I understand where you are coming from, as I'm part of a single income household with two children that is barely above water month to month. But I've actively made a choice to struggle a bit more financially rather than making potentially twice the salary at a less ethical company. It hurts sometimes, but for me personally, my mental health is much better and I enjoy my entire work day. I don't feel awkward in conversations when discussing what I do. I feel better looking my children in the eye and telling them to do the right thing. And in the end everyone is well fed and has a roof over their head and getting a proper education, so if I'm not keeping up with the other technorati in my supposed group, then so be it.

Kenji 10y ago

There are many reasons to leave facebook (as a user, at least, but arguably for employees too), but these have to be among the dumbest I've ever read. Ooh, let's boycott eachother for political opinions. Get a grip.

SapphireSun 10y ago
For what it's worth, aren't political opinions about what the practical applications of justice and goodness are? If you were going to boycott someone over anything, wouldn't it be those? If someone else's opinion falls within a reasonable spectrum from our own, it's fine to accept them. When the difference becomes great enough, you're obligated to reject those views. Where you draw the line is up to you, though there is often a societal consensus on what a reasonable Overton window is like. The problem with your argument is that you want everyone to get along, but you want them to do it regardless of extreme differences in how different people want to shape the good life. It's hard to cooperate with someone that fundamentally opposes everything you stand for at your core and, importantly(!), wants to impose their views on you. This is important because it is far easier to tolerate differences between groups that do not impose their views on each other, which is the situation in which I agree with you more often than not [1]. If you want everyone to get along, you need to show why on particular issues, or for overarching reasons, it's not worth rejecting each other. Otherwise, I find what you say hard to accept when examined below the merest surface. [1] A counter example would be a group that is murdering or mutilating its own members, and those members ask for help. That would be a clearly justified case for external intervention.

semicolon_storm 10y ago

One day, I hope to live in a world where people can disagree politically and not think the other side is the evil incarnate.

empressplay 10y ago

Blaming Facebook for the election result is like blaming the ocean for drownings.

chiefalchemist 10y ago
+1

rm999 10y ago

I'm not a fan of Trump or the way this election played out (or even facebook, really), but this article is absurd. >Because Facebook has multiple figures in leadership positions that supported Trump. Thiel vocally, Luckey surreptitiously. Thiel isn't in a leadership position at facebook (de facto or de jure - he's a board member who doesn't take a day-to-day role) and Luckey is about as marginalized as you can be within a company while maintaining contractual agreements. The real leadership of facebook seems genuinely progressive. Also, I'm not sure some employees supporting a mainstream politician is grounds for the company to be shaken up or disbanded (49% of voters supported Trump!). >Because Zuckerberg believes the fake news his platform elevates played no part in the election ... Because Facebook’s core product promotes the distribution of false information Nate Silver largely agrees: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185. And sure maybe it had some impact, but so did 50 other things going on. I'm not going to defend fake news and I think it's harmful to the election process and facebook, but this isn't a strong argument against facebook as a company. >Because Facebook shipped a racist feature in its core advertising product. A huge amount of advertising is targeted racially in a non-controversial way. This is a reality of advertising and I don't consider it racist. Facebook has made it clear it does not tolerate the illegal or discriminatory use of this feature.

sundaeofshock 10y ago
> (49% of voters supported Trump!). No. Facts still matter. As of today, Trump has received just 46.6% of the vote.

golemotron 10y ago

Every time I read something this Manichean - something implying that the "good people" must climb over the barricades and vanquish the land of evil - Ride of the Valkyries plays in my head.

gressquel 10y ago

People still using facebook ? :-) Its end is nigh, the era of socialising will come to an end when people realize its not what we wanted. I will actually go as far as saying its one great app/idea away from going down. If someone made a proper app for creating events and it spread like wildfire attracting all the "kids", I think it would be game over for FB.com I dont think theres anything else holding me back. Events and messenger...

delegate 10y ago

Note that Facebook operates and has a similar influence in many more countries. Just like in the U.S., elections in many countries are affected by the 'quality' of the information being shared and distributed through Facebook. So Facebook - the people who work at Facebook - should promptly acknowledge its impact on public opinion and public perception (with the dangers that that implies) and immediately focus on finding solutions to these unexpected side-effects of social networks. Things like echo chambers, fear vortexes, fake news, calls to (useless) protest and so on. Social networks have the potential to generate serious unrest - as has been the case in many countries already, so these things should be taken very seriously - more than what Facebook is doing now.

chiefalchemist 10y ago
FYI the quality of information is defined by the minds that consume it. Information has zero value and rating until it comes face to face with the human mind. We need to stop blaming something of no value for the entities that are unwilling to study it. Time for The Kardashians? Check! Think about what I just read? Oh sorry. That's FB's fault? Really? We're advocating for mass ignorance and laziness? What's next? Blaming the super market because I buy soda, chips and processed food? Even when real food is right in front of me? Really?
- delegate 10y ago
  > That's FB's fault? Since Facebook makes this communication possible (and profits greatly from it), it should also assume the responsibility for the side-effects of such communication. These effects exist and have consequences in the real world (sometimes violent) and if left unchecked things can quickly spiral out of control and lead to war. Yes, people should be smarter and not believe the memes on Facebook, but they aren't and there is no time to wait for everyone to get enlightened, so a more practical and constructive solution is needed. One such feature could be to provide 'alternative views' for posts - a sort of forced advertising - in which the views of the 'other' side are offered. A nice and interesting AI project, could save the world.. There's no one else who can do it, only Facebook.

vasilia 10y ago

I'm reading news about security/programming languages/new technologies here, but I don't know who is this guy. So, maybe someone can explain to me who is this guy and why I see this post on HN?

chiefalchemist 10y ago

Pro Nanny State nonsense. People need to be responsible and accountable. There's no room for mindlessness in a Democracy. Yes, FB needs to raise its bar. But that doesn't absolve the responsibilities of those who use it. This blame X for the decisions of Y is a false god. It needs to stop.