6 ms·

Not just “early”. If you talk to FB employees they do really seem to believe they’re “changing the world”, and that their product is a gift to mankind rather th

Not just “early”. If you talk to FB employees they do really seem to believe they’re “changing the world”, and that their product is a gift to mankind rather than an abomination.

bertil 8y ago
What makes you think that Facebook is an abomination?
- craftyguy 8y ago
  What makes you think it is a gift to mankind?
  - bertil 8y ago
    It allows me to keep in contact with many of my close friends and my family who live on three continent and more countries than I can count on a daily basis, has helped me find work a dozen times, has provided several companies who I worked for with credible identity, spectacular growth via targeted advertising. I can use Uber, AirBnB and so many more and not fear that the people with whom I share a car or a flat with are dangerous because those companies use Facebook profiles to credibly exclude problematic participants. That’s not me being idealistic: before that, I’ve tried email, CouchSurf, working for company based on email-and-password for almost a decade. It allows me to find interesting view point on current issues and to exclude toxic people from my social circle. I know who the people that I’m talking to are from, what they stand for and I can get that, say, that friend of a friend is probably joking when he’s teasing our common friend about the US Government because… well, he works for the Department of Energy -- that saves me the effort to rant and mansplain to them how gas market works. I’ve moved more than a dozen times, both before and after Facebook: before, you’d need months to find friends and you were limited to classmates, colleagues, religious affiliation; earlier this year, I’ve moved to a mid-sized city and I knew I could find fun people to find a beer on my first night here -- whether those were games, hobby or language-based local groups. I got to explain to my cousin who was an aspiring film-maker how to grow his social presence and drive audience at festival, and he’s now reasonably successful. There is so much more Facebook did: I was in London during 7/7 and there again, during the London Bridge attack -- I can assure you that Safety check saved my loved ones a second heart attack. I met my fiancée at a party and we couldn’t swap numbers because neither of us really knew whether it would make sense, but we didn’t had to explain what technology we meant when we suggested “Let’s write each other for a bit and see what goes”. I remember trying to do the same couple of years earlier for a party where I had nothing but an email list; talk about a series of embarrassing messages to find which one of the seven Julies was the right one. I could go on: there’s a lot more it allowed me to do, as an employee, things I can’t talk about but that I’m incredibly proud of, and that have made the world a meaningfully better place. Now, I’m trying to change my current employer’s very painfully silo-ed culture, to find people in the very large organisation that acquired us four month ago, to explain how to structure a data science project between analyst, different types of engineers, train, get feedback: Workplace, the Facebook-like software is an absolute blessing to leverage my single, anecdotic experience; to isolate motivated, like-minded people; to drive effective corporate change. What I think is impressive now is that Facebook is showing how to properly react to a scandal by explaining it to stakeholders who don’t really seem to want to listen, but throw mud; move on an do the right thing because, still, far more people don’t care than those who do -- and those who do aren’t exactly forthcoming to help. Even now, the company is exposing itself to more criticism because that’s the right thing to do. That might not be ‘a gift to mankind’ but, to me, personally, that response who actively avoid confrontation teaches me that I should be helpful and constructive, even when I’m dealing with dimwits. That I should fight my instinct to respond to a troll on Hacker News, say: “No, asshole, it’s not a gift to mankind but somehow you are too much a low-brow mouth-breathing impulsive cretin to imagine that the opposite of an ‘abomination’ has to be a gift to mankind.” because I’m not the kind of person who gains by speaking in absolutes, or insults, not do I want to be. Overall, it’s fairly positive, I would say.
    - specializeded 8y ago
      The moral equivalent of a gish gallop, might want to trim this a bit for an actual reply to come through...
      - bertil 8y ago
        I don't.
        specializeded 8y ago
        Stay losing then? Trying to help, whatever.
        bertil 8y ago
        Losing what? What are you trying to help?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - cryoshon 8y ago
      there are some problems with what you have posted. let's begin. >things I can’t talk about but that I’m incredibly proud of, and that have made the world a meaningfully better place. ah, so we must simply trust you, then? FB has violated users trust from day one with the "dumb fucks" and the like. "making the world a better place" demands evidence. btw, i bet you can probably provide some evidence that will satisfy your criteria for this. just recognize that it's overtly incredulous unless you provide that evidence. and yes, i am incredulous here. >Facebook is showing how to properly react to a scandal lying, denying, fumbling, partial admission, larger admission, and then a cycle of non-apologies is NOT the right way to handle a scandal. >Even now, the company is exposing itself to more criticism because that’s the right thing to do. yeah, that explains the extralegal FB "raid" on CA's offices. or is there some internal explanation for that? because to everyone else, it looks like you guys were "just doing the right thing" by trying to destroy evidence of their wrongdoing. trying to dress that up somehow comes off as... shall we say, incredulous, again. there's a limit to how much people will believe that you believe. and don't even bother watching zuck's testimony to congress. you will find that he is eminently doing his darndest to avoid criticism by avoiding inquiries. i encourage you to watch it in full and count the dodges. you will break fifty. oh yeah, and trying to sue the newspaper that broke the story is egregiously scummy -- i'm talking like richard nixon level of brutal sliminess. these are the actions of a criminal organization trying to escape punishment for their wrongdoing -- or at least that's what it looks like from the outside. >Overall, it’s fairly positive, I would say. does your appraisal include: involuntary surveillance of non-users passing information to (malevolent or otherwise) governments regarding their citizens non-consensual experimentation on users' emotions (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...)? what about being a willing accomplice in Chinese censorship, if they were allowed to operate in the country at all (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo...)? oh yeah, and what about causing negative emotions intrinsically via using the platform (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-... and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 & an extensive amount of similar evidence)? or is this somehow acceptable despite the galaxy of evidence that explicitly links FB to worse quality of life? what about tax evasion (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-...)? tax evasion is typically not prosocial behavior. what about political censorship in kashmir (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-...)? or maybe political censorship of the kurds (http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308240040-0023000 http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308240040-0023000)? or religious and political censorship in pakistan (http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-posts-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan-in-second-half-of-2014/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post...)? what about the censorship of the rohingya trying to tell the world about their persecution (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/20/facebook-rohingya-muslims-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/20/facebook-...)? --- i guess the bigger philosophical question is: at what point do you take responsibility for your actions in the context of facebook as a company? i understand that companies are often unethical in tiny steps until they're a monster, and it's hard to tell from the inside when things are happening. i can't imagine that i would have quit the company after any two of the things i listed. but there's more than two things. all the evidence is there, now. what's your move? PS: exhibiting restraint in this post was . . . difficult.
- throwaway84742 8y ago
  Umm, let’s see here. A service that hacks the dopamine cycle of hoi polloi to peddle ads, gossip, manufactured outrage and fake news in one direction, and personal information in the other. Is this enough, or should I provide more reasons?

Not just “early”. If you talk to FB employees they do really seem to believe they’re “changing the world”, and that their product is a gift to mankind rather than an abomination.

bertil 8y ago

What makes you think that Facebook is an abomination?

craftyguy 8y ago
What makes you think it is a gift to mankind?
- bertil 8y ago
  It allows me to keep in contact with many of my close friends and my family who live on three continent and more countries than I can count on a daily basis, has helped me find work a dozen times, has provided several companies who I worked for with credible identity, spectacular growth via targeted advertising. I can use Uber, AirBnB and so many more and not fear that the people with whom I share a car or a flat with are dangerous because those companies use Facebook profiles to credibly exclude problematic participants. That’s not me being idealistic: before that, I’ve tried email, CouchSurf, working for company based on email-and-password for almost a decade. It allows me to find interesting view point on current issues and to exclude toxic people from my social circle. I know who the people that I’m talking to are from, what they stand for and I can get that, say, that friend of a friend is probably joking when he’s teasing our common friend about the US Government because… well, he works for the Department of Energy -- that saves me the effort to rant and mansplain to them how gas market works. I’ve moved more than a dozen times, both before and after Facebook: before, you’d need months to find friends and you were limited to classmates, colleagues, religious affiliation; earlier this year, I’ve moved to a mid-sized city and I knew I could find fun people to find a beer on my first night here -- whether those were games, hobby or language-based local groups. I got to explain to my cousin who was an aspiring film-maker how to grow his social presence and drive audience at festival, and he’s now reasonably successful. There is so much more Facebook did: I was in London during 7/7 and there again, during the London Bridge attack -- I can assure you that Safety check saved my loved ones a second heart attack. I met my fiancée at a party and we couldn’t swap numbers because neither of us really knew whether it would make sense, but we didn’t had to explain what technology we meant when we suggested “Let’s write each other for a bit and see what goes”. I remember trying to do the same couple of years earlier for a party where I had nothing but an email list; talk about a series of embarrassing messages to find which one of the seven Julies was the right one. I could go on: there’s a lot more it allowed me to do, as an employee, things I can’t talk about but that I’m incredibly proud of, and that have made the world a meaningfully better place. Now, I’m trying to change my current employer’s very painfully silo-ed culture, to find people in the very large organisation that acquired us four month ago, to explain how to structure a data science project between analyst, different types of engineers, train, get feedback: Workplace, the Facebook-like software is an absolute blessing to leverage my single, anecdotic experience; to isolate motivated, like-minded people; to drive effective corporate change. What I think is impressive now is that Facebook is showing how to properly react to a scandal by explaining it to stakeholders who don’t really seem to want to listen, but throw mud; move on an do the right thing because, still, far more people don’t care than those who do -- and those who do aren’t exactly forthcoming to help. Even now, the company is exposing itself to more criticism because that’s the right thing to do. That might not be ‘a gift to mankind’ but, to me, personally, that response who actively avoid confrontation teaches me that I should be helpful and constructive, even when I’m dealing with dimwits. That I should fight my instinct to respond to a troll on Hacker News, say: “No, asshole, it’s not a gift to mankind but somehow you are too much a low-brow mouth-breathing impulsive cretin to imagine that the opposite of an ‘abomination’ has to be a gift to mankind.” because I’m not the kind of person who gains by speaking in absolutes, or insults, not do I want to be. Overall, it’s fairly positive, I would say.
  - specializeded 8y ago
    The moral equivalent of a gish gallop, might want to trim this a bit for an actual reply to come through...
    - bertil 8y ago
      I don't.
      - specializeded 8y ago
        Stay losing then? Trying to help, whatever.
        bertil 8y ago
        Losing what? What are you trying to help?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    there are some problems with what you have posted. let's begin. >things I can’t talk about but that I’m incredibly proud of, and that have made the world a meaningfully better place. ah, so we must simply trust you, then? FB has violated users trust from day one with the "dumb fucks" and the like. "making the world a better place" demands evidence. btw, i bet you can probably provide some evidence that will satisfy your criteria for this. just recognize that it's overtly incredulous unless you provide that evidence. and yes, i am incredulous here. >Facebook is showing how to properly react to a scandal lying, denying, fumbling, partial admission, larger admission, and then a cycle of non-apologies is NOT the right way to handle a scandal. >Even now, the company is exposing itself to more criticism because that’s the right thing to do. yeah, that explains the extralegal FB "raid" on CA's offices. or is there some internal explanation for that? because to everyone else, it looks like you guys were "just doing the right thing" by trying to destroy evidence of their wrongdoing. trying to dress that up somehow comes off as... shall we say, incredulous, again. there's a limit to how much people will believe that you believe. and don't even bother watching zuck's testimony to congress. you will find that he is eminently doing his darndest to avoid criticism by avoiding inquiries. i encourage you to watch it in full and count the dodges. you will break fifty. oh yeah, and trying to sue the newspaper that broke the story is egregiously scummy -- i'm talking like richard nixon level of brutal sliminess. these are the actions of a criminal organization trying to escape punishment for their wrongdoing -- or at least that's what it looks like from the outside. >Overall, it’s fairly positive, I would say. does your appraisal include: involuntary surveillance of non-users passing information to (malevolent or otherwise) governments regarding their citizens non-consensual experimentation on users' emotions (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...)? what about being a willing accomplice in Chinese censorship, if they were allowed to operate in the country at all (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censo...)? oh yeah, and what about causing negative emotions intrinsically via using the platform (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-says/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-may-cause-stress-study-... and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23709009 & an extensive amount of similar evidence)? or is this somehow acceptable despite the galaxy of evidence that explicitly links FB to worse quality of life? what about tax evasion (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-tax-profits-outside-us https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/23/facebook-...)? tax evasion is typically not prosocial behavior. what about political censorship in kashmir (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-under-fire-censoring-kashmir-posts-accounts https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/19/facebook-...)? or maybe political censorship of the kurds (http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308240040-0023000 http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201308240040-0023000)? or religious and political censorship in pakistan (http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-posts-for-blasphemy-in-pakistan-in-second-half-of-2014/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post...)? what about the censorship of the rohingya trying to tell the world about their persecution (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/20/facebook-rohingya-muslims-myanmar https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/20/facebook-...)? --- i guess the bigger philosophical question is: at what point do you take responsibility for your actions in the context of facebook as a company? i understand that companies are often unethical in tiny steps until they're a monster, and it's hard to tell from the inside when things are happening. i can't imagine that i would have quit the company after any two of the things i listed. but there's more than two things. all the evidence is there, now. what's your move? PS: exhibiting restraint in this post was . . . difficult.
throwaway84742 8y ago
Umm, let’s see here. A service that hacks the dopamine cycle of hoi polloi to peddle ads, gossip, manufactured outrage and fake news in one direction, and personal information in the other. Is this enough, or should I provide more reasons?