6 ms·

While I live in Silicon Valley and mostly agree with the prevailing morality, it's alarming to see Facebook (and others like Reddit/Twitter) move so aggressivel

by dahdum 10y ago

While I live in Silicon Valley and mostly agree with the prevailing morality, it's alarming to see Facebook (and others like Reddit/Twitter) move so aggressively towards social engineering the entire world.

grx 10y ago
It's like everyone builds a political army from its user base, steering it by manipulation with algorithms and bots. This works since the beginning of humanity, I don't see why it surprises people that new technology resorts to proven methods.
jerf 10y ago
Cybercolonialism. I don't just mean that as a snarky crack. It's worth pondering the idea a bit. They've been headed in this direction for a while, but it's becoming undeniable. (Remember, Facebook is more than just America. They and their stock valuation aspire to be global.)
- dgudkov 10y ago
  Or cybergovernment. Internet giants are becoming fundamental services for millions of people. They're not just too big to fail -- they are essential, which makes them comparable to governments.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    I love the silicon valley hyperbole. Lets rank facebook being down for 2 weeks with: Shut down all the banks 2 weeks, eg no access to any money. Shut down all Gasoline for 2 weeks. Eg no personal transit (shut up you smug Tesla drivers I'm getting you next). Shut down all electricity for 2 weeks. No Power. (All you with power on your roofs and teslas... this gets your grocery store fridges). I think you need to re-evaluate what is "essential".
    - blakes 10y ago
      I agree, "essential" is maybe too strong of a word. But I do like to ponder the thought of all Google services, or all Amazon services shutting down for 2 weeks. Clearly not as essential, but the impact on the daily life of at least most of the US would at least be noticeable. I believe these are still the early days of "internet giants". They seem giant now, but with MS, Google, Amazon, and other "giants" aiming to provide much of the structure of not only the internet, but also some of our daily lives (delivery, web, phone, internet access, information/news), I can imagine twenty years from now the reach of these "giants" to be far closer to "essential" then we feel they are now. Who knows, maybe we will forever be in a cycle of "giants" growing, evolving, and failing without ever becoming essential. I don't know how it will work haha, but interesting to consider.
      - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
        Wouldn't giants just imply monopolies? I suspect to a point we are going to see the pendulum swing away from far-right politics towards far left politics. It'll be sexy to break up these giants for political points. Some talk has already be muttered here and there about Trump possibly targeting Amazon. After the Trump presidency, if we manage to get a far left progressive with the intention on breaking up other giants it works to be seen then that under neither political wing are giants protected from witch hunts. I've long been in favor of ending the Sherman act for this reason. You can target companies that are politically opposed to you by just a bit of rhetoric and government over reach. One interesting way to think about what good breaking up companies do is think of Standard Oil's breakup leading to a butterfly affect so to speak that encouraged the increase usage of carbon base fuels. There were relatively crappy electric car models in the 1900s, there was actually a point where the electric car worked better than gas (1). If Standard Oil was to remain together and lack of competition meant higher oil prices this could have led Ford and others to research ways to make the electric model more capable for the masses as consumer demand would seek such alternatives. 100 years later, we may be in a much better position environmentally..maybe. Just a butterfly effect thought nonetheless. All that said, the best thing to do in order to combat monopolies in the free market is to legalize insider trading and spoofing. The markets will figure it out. Insiders acting on information they know without having to go through SEC hoops would be able to react more quickly and damage firms in ways that could work to destabilize such giants. 1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
  - Pamar 10y ago
    Remind me how many armored divisions Facebook has, again?
lazaroclapp 10y ago
Arguably, Facebook has been very cautious on how it moves towards social engineering the world, though. Which is what has allowed things like Cambridge Analytica to do so instead. The whole point of this manifesto is not "lets take over the world!", it is "we have a huge influence in the world, that much is a fact, let us take some measure of responsibility about it". Could there be a better alternative to Facebook being the one which has this power? Sure. But that's not for Facebook to change. The best you can hope is them taking their current power seriously and trying to wield it responsibly and that's what the manifesto is about. You want to take that power from them and build something better... well, feel free to give it a go.
- _xnjw 10y ago
  I agree that Facebook doesn’t socially engineer users as much as it could, but I think this is more a testament to its immense power than its kind intentions. Facebook is no stranger to unethical behaviors—its actions only seem ethical in comparison to what is possible with that amount of power. Remember a couple years ago when Facebook published a blatantly unethical psychological experiment that manipulated the emotions of unconsenting, unaware users? Zuckerberg didn’t think of it as a shady A/B test to keep private within the company, he allowed it to be published in PNAS. Let’s not forget, Facebook isn’t exactly being exploited by shady actors like Cambridge Analytica—it's profiting from them. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke... http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf

by dahdum 10y ago

grx 10y ago

It's like everyone builds a political army from its user base, steering it by manipulation with algorithms and bots. This works since the beginning of humanity, I don't see why it surprises people that new technology resorts to proven methods.

jerf 10y ago

Cybercolonialism. I don't just mean that as a snarky crack. It's worth pondering the idea a bit. They've been headed in this direction for a while, but it's becoming undeniable. (Remember, Facebook is more than just America. They and their stock valuation aspire to be global.)

dgudkov 10y ago
Or cybergovernment. Internet giants are becoming fundamental services for millions of people. They're not just too big to fail -- they are essential, which makes them comparable to governments.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  I love the silicon valley hyperbole. Lets rank facebook being down for 2 weeks with: Shut down all the banks 2 weeks, eg no access to any money. Shut down all Gasoline for 2 weeks. Eg no personal transit (shut up you smug Tesla drivers I'm getting you next). Shut down all electricity for 2 weeks. No Power. (All you with power on your roofs and teslas... this gets your grocery store fridges). I think you need to re-evaluate what is "essential".
  - blakes 10y ago
    I agree, "essential" is maybe too strong of a word. But I do like to ponder the thought of all Google services, or all Amazon services shutting down for 2 weeks. Clearly not as essential, but the impact on the daily life of at least most of the US would at least be noticeable. I believe these are still the early days of "internet giants". They seem giant now, but with MS, Google, Amazon, and other "giants" aiming to provide much of the structure of not only the internet, but also some of our daily lives (delivery, web, phone, internet access, information/news), I can imagine twenty years from now the reach of these "giants" to be far closer to "essential" then we feel they are now. Who knows, maybe we will forever be in a cycle of "giants" growing, evolving, and failing without ever becoming essential. I don't know how it will work haha, but interesting to consider.
    - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
      Wouldn't giants just imply monopolies? I suspect to a point we are going to see the pendulum swing away from far-right politics towards far left politics. It'll be sexy to break up these giants for political points. Some talk has already be muttered here and there about Trump possibly targeting Amazon. After the Trump presidency, if we manage to get a far left progressive with the intention on breaking up other giants it works to be seen then that under neither political wing are giants protected from witch hunts. I've long been in favor of ending the Sherman act for this reason. You can target companies that are politically opposed to you by just a bit of rhetoric and government over reach. One interesting way to think about what good breaking up companies do is think of Standard Oil's breakup leading to a butterfly affect so to speak that encouraged the increase usage of carbon base fuels. There were relatively crappy electric car models in the 1900s, there was actually a point where the electric car worked better than gas (1). If Standard Oil was to remain together and lack of competition meant higher oil prices this could have led Ford and others to research ways to make the electric model more capable for the masses as consumer demand would seek such alternatives. 100 years later, we may be in a much better position environmentally..maybe. Just a butterfly effect thought nonetheless. All that said, the best thing to do in order to combat monopolies in the free market is to legalize insider trading and spoofing. The markets will figure it out. Insiders acting on information they know without having to go through SEC hoops would be able to react more quickly and damage firms in ways that could work to destabilize such giants. 1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
- Pamar 10y ago
  Remind me how many armored divisions Facebook has, again?

lazaroclapp 10y ago

Arguably, Facebook has been very cautious on how it moves towards social engineering the world, though. Which is what has allowed things like Cambridge Analytica to do so instead. The whole point of this manifesto is not "lets take over the world!", it is "we have a huge influence in the world, that much is a fact, let us take some measure of responsibility about it". Could there be a better alternative to Facebook being the one which has this power? Sure. But that's not for Facebook to change. The best you can hope is them taking their current power seriously and trying to wield it responsibly and that's what the manifesto is about. You want to take that power from them and build something better... well, feel free to give it a go.

_xnjw 10y ago
I agree that Facebook doesn’t socially engineer users as much as it could, but I think this is more a testament to its immense power than its kind intentions. Facebook is no stranger to unethical behaviors—its actions only seem ethical in comparison to what is possible with that amount of power. Remember a couple years ago when Facebook published a blatantly unethical psychological experiment that manipulated the emotions of unconsenting, unaware users? Zuckerberg didn’t think of it as a shady A/B test to keep private within the company, he allowed it to be published in PNAS. Let’s not forget, Facebook isn’t exactly being exploited by shady actors like Cambridge Analytica—it's profiting from them. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke... http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf