8 ms·

Ok, I had to make a throwaway for this because apparently its a heated debate. Why does everything Facebook do have to be so heavily criticized? Safety Check

• austenallred 9y ago
  The combination of a wildly successful company, not caring about privacy, and a (formerly) bombastic founder. It's the perfect storm for HN shitposting. They have an enormous target on their back and could never do anything right. They got ripped for not enabling safety check recently too. https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/15/facebook-says-it-will-enable-safety-check-in-more-human-disasters-following-criticism/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/15/facebook-says-it-will-enab...
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • nickpsecurity 9y ago
    "The combination of a wildly successful company, not caring about privacy, and a (formerly) bombastic founder. It's the perfect storm for HN shitposting" Them implementing a feature so poorly that it tells people 6 miles away to confirm they're safe from a building fire is a "perfect storm for HN shitposting" because of the success of the company, privacy issues, and the founder? And not because the feature is a failing in ways causing false alarms and unnecessary stress?
    • austenallred 9y ago
      No, because people already hate Facebook so much that when they make a small mistake it gets blown up and turned into a giant news story and hits the front page of HN, filling it up with "delete Facebook!!!" posts.
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Frankly, thank the mainstream media. I bet if Techcrunch didn't write about it, we wouldn't even have this story. If I posted it on my personal blog, I'd be rightly laughed out of the room.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• adrianlmm 9y ago
  Facebook is mainly hated here by Google employees or Google advocates because is some how more successul than them.
  • whatevthrow31 9y ago
    I've been at both companies. I highly doubt HN is filled with Google employees bashing Facebook.
    • adrianlmm 9y ago
      Then, who are those people?
      • naasking 9y ago
        Are you suggesting that only Google employees can hate and distrust Facebook?
        • adrianlmm 9y ago
          It is weird that Facebook always get bashed for privacy and Google (who is even worse in that aspect) always get a free pass, just saying.
          • amaks 9y ago
            "Google (who is even worse in that aspect)" Proof?
            • adrianlmm 9y ago
              Are you a Google advocate?
              • naasking 9y ago
                Are you a Facebook shill? See, the paranoia cuts both ways.
• fratlas 9y ago
  I agree with you up until the mic comment. I ran a few tests with friends. We talked about very obscure topics repeatedly (and nothing else) that we would otherwise would have never messaged, and after scrolling 2 mins, targeted ads appeared for those topics. Happened for multiple topics.
  • kevinwang 9y ago
    are you serious? Which app/phone?
    • fratlas 9y ago
      We both had our phones (one iPhone, one android) and macbooks on with facebook (web/app) open.
      • daveFNbuck 9y ago
        How did you ensure that no other apps were listening in the background?
        • mod 9y ago
          I don't understand--how would other apps trigger related facebook ads?
          • seanp2k2 9y ago
            Send some data to an ad network or something that feeds it, Facebook ads somehow pick that up. Not beyond the realm of feasibility. Try using a just-factory-reset phone with JUST the Facebook app installed. There is science to be done here.
          • falseAss 9y ago
            https://www.quora.com/How-does-Facebook-know-what-I-looked-at-on-Amazon https://www.quora.com/How-does-Facebook-know-what-I-looked-a...
• porpoisemonkey 9y ago
  My general feeling from the comments I've seen over the years is that HN is not keen on market leading companies in general. I suspect it could be due to a selective audience since the site is tailored to entrepreneurs and startups.
  • shopkins 9y ago
    It's because we're skeptical of corporations that hold the kind of power Facebook does -- power derived from their data on literally billions of people -- just as we would be if it was a government doing the same. And companies like Facebook get extra (deserved) scrutiny, because they aren't as accountable to the people using their products, since those people aren't their customers. It's not about "startups vs. market leading companies." It's this audience knowing the immense power and control companies like Facebook can (and do) exert over us all.
• omegaworks 9y ago
  It's so new and so massive that decisions made there affect the world in unpredictable ways. It's compelling to talk about the effects, clearly people care about it, so it will be written about.
• Analemma_ 9y ago
  Zuckerberg said plainly that people who trust him are "dumb fucks", so I have what I think is the natural response and don't trust him. It's not complicated.
  • twright0 9y ago
    He was 19 at the time he wrote that. He is 33 now. I'm not sure it's natural or fair to judge someone predominantly on an off-the-cuff comment they made almost half their lives ago. I certainly said things at 19 that I wouldn't want attached to my professional identity and that aren't representative of my beliefs and mindset now. While I don't know you, the same is likely true of you, or will be someday. How long in the past does something like that need to be before you can start taking other evidence into account?
    • AlexandrB 9y ago
      > He was 19 at the time he wrote that. He is 33 now. I'm not sure it's natural or fair to judge someone predominantly on an off-the-cuff comment they made almost half their lives ago. I'm sure that becoming a billionaire and one of the most powerful men in the world has made him infinitely more humble. But I think it's more likely that he's just gotten better at messaging and spin - especially since he now has people to help him do those things. > How long in the past does something like that need to be before you can start taking other evidence into account? What evidence (actions not words) is there that Zuckerberg is any more concerned about people's privacy than when he was 19? Take a look at the WhatsApp fiasco[1] - all I see is evidence that we continue to be "dumb fucks" by trusting Facebook. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/08/26/whatsapp-met-with-backlash-after-giving-users-data-to-facebook/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/08/26/whatsapp-me...
  • praneshp 9y ago
    I assume you also expect people who commit crimes to rot in jail forever, and do not support rehabilitation instead. Because the dumb fucks comment was in 2004. Edit: (In case you nitpick my analogy) I guess you would not hire a person that was jailed in the past, because you cannot trust them.
• Sacho 9y ago
  I don't have a strong opinion about your general question, but this is easily explainable: > Safety Check is a wonderful feature. If I remember correctly, it started off as an internal hackathon project that got turned into a full feature. They get shit if they turn it on (here), and if they don't turn it on (past tragedies where they failed to turn it on). It's just not the same people doing the complaining. That some people complained about the feature not being on doesn't mean there are no negatives to turning it on, and now people affected by those negatives are complaining. Or to draw a more absurdist comparison, let's say Facebook had a switch. If they pull it, I get punched in the face. If they don't pull it, you get punched in the face. Now, when they pull it, I'm understandably upset and demand they stop pulling it. When they listen to my complaint and stop pulling it, you are suddenly upset and tell them to keep pulling it. Seems like Facebook just can't catch a break? Or are they simply trying to serve customers with competing needs, something every business has to deal with? I don't think this situation is special to Facebook, so I think a likely explanation for your initial question(Why does everything Facebook do have to be so heavily criticized?) would be that this is something common to large businesses trying to serve competing interests, and you notice Facebook more because Facebook is very large and has lots of users.
  • aaron-lebo 9y ago
    They don't just have lots of users, they have more users than any country in the history of the world (that's 1.9 billion monthly users). Therefore there are potentially massive, world-changing consequences to everything they do, and even those who don't use it can't opt out of the effects. Do you really feel like a non-democratic oligarchy (or more inflammatory language, a dictator) should have that much power? edit: posted too much to make a proper reply, but China is only at 1.3 billion and is obviously a lot more localized
    • idibidiartists 9y ago
      China has more people than Facebook has users.
      • simongray 9y ago
• bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Ok, I had to make a throwaway for this because apparently its a heated debate." I am curious why do you feel the need to make a throwaway account because something is a "heated debate."?
  • raleighm 9y ago
    Agreed. If it's because OP's a facebook employee, that should be disclosed w/ the throwaway account.
    • whatevthrow31 9y ago
      I'll be honest and say that I'm a former Facebook employee. Probably should have disclosed that originally, but I think it gives even more credit to my Hanlon's razor statement. It's just safer/easier to use a throwaway. I have these opinions in real life, but I try not to be too controversial in writing.
      • csydas 9y ago
        I had written a response to the parent comment on this considering an alternate possibility, but then saw this and deleted it. If you could update your original post, it would help curb some of the meta-discussion on your comment. As meta comment though, I don't think anything you said is necessarily controversial, it's just debatable. Obviously you need to gauge the potential fallout on your own life, but the comments themselves are fairly innocuous.
        • whatevthrow31 9y ago
          Updated my original post to include my former employment. It's just a habit of mine to make a throwaway for anything potentially controversial. It really wouldn't be too big if a deal if my identity was connected to any of my throwaways. It just makes me feel safer.
      • raleighm 9y ago
        Not sure I agree on the Hanlon's razor point. Your view of the intentionality of insiders is an insider's view. ;) But in general, I don't doubt that these things are well intended and not malicious. In my case, my complaint isn't that Facebook is malicious or intentional. It's more of a negligence or gross negligence point. [Edited for clarity]
• ebbv 9y ago
  Are you kidding me? This is not a "wonderful feature" this is a blatant attempt to capitalize on disasters and turn it into user engagement which becomes ad revenue for Facebook. Give me a break.
  • whatevthrow31 9y ago
    Is there anything Facebook could do at this point that wouldn't make you think this? Just because someone's making money off of something doesn't mean it's inherently bad.
    • ebbv 9y ago
      Your attitude is absurd, man. Making money is not inherently bad, we all have to make money to earn a living. Duh. But jumping on a disaster to make money is always bad. There's a reason being a war profiteer was a prosecutable offense (though that seems to have gone out the window in recent decades.) I'm not sure what your question is; do you mean is there anything Facebook could do when there's a disaster that wouldn't seem like they're trying to cash grab in a very inappropriate way? I don't know. My response would be Facebook is not important when there's a disaster, there's plenty of other forms of communication. If you can use Facebook then you have internet and phone/texting access, so you don't need Facebook. Your loved ones can get a hold of you by more direct methods. Which is not to say it's impossible Facebook could come up with a useful feature that would be helpful to people during a disaster; but "Safety Check" is not that.
      • whatevthrow31 9y ago
        Anything altruistic is going to make them money indirectly through PR. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to be altruistic. > Which is not to say it's impossible Facebook could come up with a useful feature that would be helpful to people during a disaster; but "Safety Check" is not that. The top post on this thread is literally someone saying that this feature is the only reason they have kept their account. Can it be improved? Absolutely. But to say it's not useful in its current form is absurd.
• raleighm 9y ago
  Facebook's hooks are my relationships. Leveraging relationships in order to drive engagement isn't problematic in itself; that's just the business Facebook is in, and I accept that by using the site. But there are ways and means. Facebook's all too often feel so tone-deaf it's insulting, given the special nature of the content I've entrusted to them. Safety check's radical over-inclusiveness is an example. And the rates they charge even the nonprofit fundraisers - that strikes me as just shameless.
• colordrops 9y ago
  Seems to be a pretty tame topic to be using a throwaway. Perhaps you have a vested interest in the debate.
• naaaaak 9y ago
  > Why does everything Facebook do turn into a riot? Their core audience are a bunch of SJW cucks. Everything is offensive.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • sctb 9y ago
    Posting like this will get your account banned. Please stop.
• bogomipz 9y ago
  >"It feels like everything Facebook is overblown on HN" And yet you had to create a throwaway account before you could comment.
  • marksomnian 9y ago
    If I understood GP correctly, he created it due to the heat of the debate, not to make it more heated.
    • bogomipz 9y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that they created a throw away account to make it more heated.
• jdietrich 9y ago
  Imagine if one-fifth of the entire global population read the same newspaper every morning. Imagine if that same newspaper also operated the largest espionage network in the history of humanity. Facebook doesn't receive nearly enough scrutiny and criticism. Western governments have been completely blindsided by the immense power that lies in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook have a near-monopoly on social media in many countries. They have an incomprehensibly vast archive of personal data, alongside a EULA that allows them to do nearly anything with that data. Their algorithms profoundly influence how two billion people perceive the world, with practically no transparency or oversight. Facebook are a hair's breadth away from any number of dystopian scenarios. We should be extremely nervous about the unchecked power that Facebook wields. We should pounce on any dubious decision that Facebook makes, but we should also be asking some serious and fundamental questions about the position of Facebook in our society. Look at Zuckerberg's recent manifesto. He fully understands how powerful he is, and he has a clear vision of how he intends to use that power to shape the world. It's time that we (and our elected representatives) woke up. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-community/10154544292806634 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-glob...
  • aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Very well said. Hopefully more people will adopt this kind of skepticism and realism about the entities that affect our daily lives.
  • dx034 9y ago
    > Imagine if one-fifth of the entire global population read the same newspaper every morning. Imagine if that same newspaper also operated the largest espionage network in the history of humanity. That's not a valid comparison since Facebook doesn't publish their own content. It can promote unfiltered news (that often turn out not to be true) but it's not as if the same news story would be read by 1bn people each day.
    • colordrops 9y ago
      You are missing the entire point of the analogy.
• sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Ok, I had to make a throwaway for this because apparently its a heated debate. You may like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14456200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14456200 which hides your comment scores and scrambles your karma counters. I find that without the distraction of downvotes, it's much easier to have substantive conversations even on heated topics.
• ianamartin 9y ago
  It's probably because Facebook does a lot of shitty things, and that when the start doing more shitty things, people pay attention because it has the largest market penetration of any company in history, and because doing shady, sloppy, crappy stuff to over a billion people is kind of a big deal to, I don't know, over a billion people or so. Give or take. Facebook's history and business model are selling data to advertisers to make money. Locking your data in. Depriving you of ownership of your content. When the sole source of income for a company depends on duping people into providing free data and content that they can monetize through unbelievably shitty ads, you can bet your ass that there will be some false evil positives. Because why wouldn't they? Is there anything Facebook wouldn't do to make a buck? I think the answer is no. They have no morals, no ethics, and no values that I can discern. When someone says Facebook is listening to your computer microphone, I think, "Well duh. Of course they would. Anything for another advertising buck." And when I find out they weren't, I think, "Well, it's a good idea for them. They are probably working on it." Can you name one single thing that Facebook has refused to do in the search for ad revenue? I've never worked there, so I can't possibly know the answer to that question. But based on what I've seen Facebook actually do (false reports not included), I'm pretty sure that no one ever says no to anything if there's a chance at making more money. Add to that the fact that the company is explicitly against the norms and standards of an open web, and you have a good portion of your answer. We hate Facebook because it takes advantage of people who don't know any better and subverts the open nature of the internet. And because there is seemingly nothing it will not do, no matter how unethical or awful, to further its own ends above.
• te_chris 9y ago
  As you are a former fb employee and current big tech employee I highly suggest you look a bit deeper at some of the arguments against facebook's monopoly on personal surveillance and critically ask yourself whether you're really ok with where this is leading.
• AlexandrB 9y ago
  > Why does everything Facebook do have to be so heavily criticized? Personally I find it offensive that an ad network thinks it has anything to say to me about the safety of my loved ones or that it has pretensions to providing services for the "public good". If you're going to sell ads, sell ads. Don't pretend that you're not in the psychological manipulation business and you're somehow saving the world. > After years in the industry, 95% of things that are "bad" that come out of big companies end up being well meaning and just look malicious without context. Hanlon's razor is real. Intentions don't matter. The negative effects of pervasive corporate surveillance and finely targeted advertising are real and potentially catastrophic. Being "well meaning" just means that the engineers either didn't fully consider the consequences of their actions or acted with enough hubris to think they knew the consequences even though there were many unknowns. The cost reductions that removed hardware interlocks for the Therac-25[1] were well-meaning. Still killed people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
• lmm 9y ago
  It's the one thing in my newsfeed that I can't remove. And I don't want it there. I can (and do) hide other people's posts, I can (and do) even hide ads, but I can't hide this nonsense except by being complicit in it. If it had a "go away" button I wouldn't mind.