6 ms·

Even though you never hear the counterpoint on HN, it’s important to remember that FB’s behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad - people can have differen

Even though you never hear the counterpoint on HN, it’s important to remember that FB’s behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad - people can have different views on these things.

newscracker 8y ago
I agree that people can have different views on these things for various reasons. But I don't see how "FB's behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad", unless one considers only the profit motive as prime without giving any thought to other factors. Can you expand on that?
- kodablah 8y ago
  Taking all behaviors as a whole, from operating the network to the nefarious things they do to make money, many would argue that they are not bad. Preferred over the actual alternatives (e.g. unstable networks, not existing at all, etc) for many in fact. While I am not a user and don't condone their practices, lots of people are happy and willing participants. Whether they need to be protected from themselves ala seat belts and cigarettes is a societal decision, but right now it's clear the citizenry has a favorable view of them even despite the onslaught from legislators and overarching media narratives. Going on a tangent here...But I've been thinking about this. At some point it's going to come to a head between these two views of FB if the squeakiest wheels also influence laws. If you rock people's comfy boat too much, there will be backlash.
- exolymph 8y ago
  Well, for one thing, nothing is objectively good or bad. Value judgments come from people, and people have widely varying perspectives. For another, the reason there's no mass exodus from Facebook is that Facebook users do not perceive the company as harming them. They perceive it as a useful service for staying in touch with friends and family. The utility it provides outweighs privacy concerns, because most people do not care about digital privacy. They care that no one is watching them go to the bathroom or have sex, but they do not care whether advertisers can target them based on aggregated information.
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    > nothing is objectively good or bad Just pointing out that this assertion is unjustifiably presented as fact.
    - dorgo 8y ago
      can you expand on this? How is good or bad not subjective?
      - Domenic_S 8y ago
        I'm not really interested in expanding directly, but if you're curious, answering that question is an entire field of study called ethics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
        chillacy 8y ago
        My understanding is that for the study of ethics, morality is absolute in that there is an absolute answer, even if we don't know what that answer is. If there were no absolute answer, then ethics as a field can't exist. But that seems a bit tautological to me. Moral absolutism stood on more solid ground at a time when the world was smaller and more religious.
        dorgo 8y ago
        Thank you. Seems like you associate objectivity with popularity. Like in if all/most people consider something good/evil then it is objectively good/evil. I wasn't aware of this view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil "... and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans."
        sireat 8y ago
        This is a dicy ground to enter. As Voltaire said about God, same goes for absolute morals. They ought to exist because without absolutes society is liable to collapse. That does not mean that absolute morals exist just that we sort of pretend they do. Take any human behaviour and you will find pros and cons in the good/evil category. Liqueur/weed laws, sexuality laws, voting laws, slavery laws, etc etc etc. Extreme example. Bio-hackers release a virus which manages to kill the whole of humanity on Earth including themselves. Evil/bad absolutely? Certainly bad for humanity if there are humans left on other planets. But otherwise the question is meaningless to humans. All morals are localized to time/space.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >But I don't see how "FB's behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad", unless one considers only the profit motive as prime without giving any thought to other factors. Can you expand on that? Anti-Disclaimer: I do not work for Facebook nor have I ever have in the past. I think the challenge on expanding on that is that you have not made a case for why it is objectively bad. Your posture is one of an assumption that everyone here understands and has the facts that you have. So it is hard to answer your question without knowing what you are thinking. Additionally, I am wondering why the question is specifically about FB devs, as opposed to Google's? Or frankly, so many other companies who are likely making money in similar ways. Guessing that should include Yelp, LinkedIn, etc (not sure, though). Are we targeting FB merely because they're very effective? For me, I have said it here and in person before: I do not see a problem so far in what Facebook is doing. I mean, I have quite a lot of personal issues with Facebook, which is why I have never had an account. Over 10 years ago when my friends in college asked why I did not have an account, my response was always "Why would I want a private company to know who my friends are? That is information that is precious." However, that's my personal issue, and my stance is and has always been that if a particular user is OK with Facebook having that information in exchange for their services, there is no ethical/moral dilemma. It is a transaction, and neither party is being coerced. So I have never been in favor of legislation that limits this relationship. Now it should not be hard to understand that for me, if I've lived a fine life all this time without Facebook, any kind of argument that "not joining Facebook is not a realistic option" will not receive my sympathies. The basic data collection is fairly transparent: Everything you provide to them (content, contacts, etc) is available to them. No user should be surprised that they utilize this information. It is the default assumption for any online service. If you use your Facebook account to log into other sites, it should be obvious that Facebook has that info. With regards to the more "shadowy" aspects (e.g. cookies tracking you across sites, etc), a point could be made, but honestly none of this is shadowy any more - it's been in the press repeatedly for years. Once again, if the users don't care, I don't see how it can be "objectively bad". People tend to invoke the user's ignorance: Most users are not tech savvy and cannot be expected to know how all this works - so they cannot reasonably know they are making a bad bargain. I am not sympathetic to this. The reason is that in all the years Facebook has been in existence, I have talked to and educated many average folks about the potential downsides of giving a private company so much information about you. Everyone I spoke to was quite OK with the whole concept. Not one person felt it was problematic. So not only do I not have a reason to think FB is "objectively bad", I cannot even invoke social proof! Whatever bad people keep claiming is coming out of FB is something most of the population does not think is bad. I have few sympathies for the (very few) people who are whining about it, because their behavior is similar to irresponsible adults who continually make bad decisions and have lives wrecked as a result, and then expect to get bailed out. Like not buying earthquake insurance in an earthquake zone and then demanding compensation when they lose their house. Facebook did not become what they did by being clever against their users. They got there by working with them. Any discussion of issues about Facebook without implicating the users who happily helped them is biased. Finally, and perhaps the most controversial part of my comment: Let's not kid ourselves. People are upset about this because it helped Trump more than any real concern about our privacy. Had a more likeable candidate (Obama, etc) used data from CA to help win an election, I would expect a fraction of the coverage this is getting right now. In fact, I think Obama did heavily utilize these services in 2008 and 2012 - just not as effectively as Trump's campaign did. If anything, Trump's campaign was merely more effective.
sudouser 8y ago
Facebook is a textbook on dark ux and addiction
- chillacy 8y ago
  I could see someone saying that the ends justify the means. Check out this line of thought: 1. I support opt-in by default organ donation because even though it's a "dark pattern", it creates the most public good. 2. I think developing AI will lead to lots of good things. Therefore I think the ends justify the means.
  - sudouser 8y ago
    yes, sadly people in the tech space don’t put a lot of thought in the consequences of their actions in the long term. Ie do we really need more engagement in video games even if customers forget to eat??
- sudouser 8y ago
  pinterest too

Even though you never hear the counterpoint on HN, it’s important to remember that FB’s behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad - people can have different views on these things.

newscracker 8y ago

I agree that people can have different views on these things for various reasons. But I don't see how "FB's behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad", unless one considers only the profit motive as prime without giving any thought to other factors. Can you expand on that?

kodablah 8y ago
Taking all behaviors as a whole, from operating the network to the nefarious things they do to make money, many would argue that they are not bad. Preferred over the actual alternatives (e.g. unstable networks, not existing at all, etc) for many in fact. While I am not a user and don't condone their practices, lots of people are happy and willing participants. Whether they need to be protected from themselves ala seat belts and cigarettes is a societal decision, but right now it's clear the citizenry has a favorable view of them even despite the onslaught from legislators and overarching media narratives. Going on a tangent here...But I've been thinking about this. At some point it's going to come to a head between these two views of FB if the squeakiest wheels also influence laws. If you rock people's comfy boat too much, there will be backlash.
exolymph 8y ago
Well, for one thing, nothing is objectively good or bad. Value judgments come from people, and people have widely varying perspectives. For another, the reason there's no mass exodus from Facebook is that Facebook users do not perceive the company as harming them. They perceive it as a useful service for staying in touch with friends and family. The utility it provides outweighs privacy concerns, because most people do not care about digital privacy. They care that no one is watching them go to the bathroom or have sex, but they do not care whether advertisers can target them based on aggregated information.
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  > nothing is objectively good or bad Just pointing out that this assertion is unjustifiably presented as fact.
  - dorgo 8y ago
    can you expand on this? How is good or bad not subjective?
    - Domenic_S 8y ago
      I'm not really interested in expanding directly, but if you're curious, answering that question is an entire field of study called ethics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
      - chillacy 8y ago
        My understanding is that for the study of ethics, morality is absolute in that there is an absolute answer, even if we don't know what that answer is. If there were no absolute answer, then ethics as a field can't exist. But that seems a bit tautological to me. Moral absolutism stood on more solid ground at a time when the world was smaller and more religious.
      - dorgo 8y ago
        Thank you. Seems like you associate objectivity with popularity. Like in if all/most people consider something good/evil then it is objectively good/evil. I wasn't aware of this view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil "... and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans."
      - sireat 8y ago
        This is a dicy ground to enter. As Voltaire said about God, same goes for absolute morals. They ought to exist because without absolutes society is liable to collapse. That does not mean that absolute morals exist just that we sort of pretend they do. Take any human behaviour and you will find pros and cons in the good/evil category. Liqueur/weed laws, sexuality laws, voting laws, slavery laws, etc etc etc. Extreme example. Bio-hackers release a virus which manages to kill the whole of humanity on Earth including themselves. Evil/bad absolutely? Certainly bad for humanity if there are humans left on other planets. But otherwise the question is meaningless to humans. All morals are localized to time/space.
BeetleB 8y ago
>But I don't see how "FB's behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad", unless one considers only the profit motive as prime without giving any thought to other factors. Can you expand on that? Anti-Disclaimer: I do not work for Facebook nor have I ever have in the past. I think the challenge on expanding on that is that you have not made a case for why it is objectively bad. Your posture is one of an assumption that everyone here understands and has the facts that you have. So it is hard to answer your question without knowing what you are thinking. Additionally, I am wondering why the question is specifically about FB devs, as opposed to Google's? Or frankly, so many other companies who are likely making money in similar ways. Guessing that should include Yelp, LinkedIn, etc (not sure, though). Are we targeting FB merely because they're very effective? For me, I have said it here and in person before: I do not see a problem so far in what Facebook is doing. I mean, I have quite a lot of personal issues with Facebook, which is why I have never had an account. Over 10 years ago when my friends in college asked why I did not have an account, my response was always "Why would I want a private company to know who my friends are? That is information that is precious." However, that's my personal issue, and my stance is and has always been that if a particular user is OK with Facebook having that information in exchange for their services, there is no ethical/moral dilemma. It is a transaction, and neither party is being coerced. So I have never been in favor of legislation that limits this relationship. Now it should not be hard to understand that for me, if I've lived a fine life all this time without Facebook, any kind of argument that "not joining Facebook is not a realistic option" will not receive my sympathies. The basic data collection is fairly transparent: Everything you provide to them (content, contacts, etc) is available to them. No user should be surprised that they utilize this information. It is the default assumption for any online service. If you use your Facebook account to log into other sites, it should be obvious that Facebook has that info. With regards to the more "shadowy" aspects (e.g. cookies tracking you across sites, etc), a point could be made, but honestly none of this is shadowy any more - it's been in the press repeatedly for years. Once again, if the users don't care, I don't see how it can be "objectively bad". People tend to invoke the user's ignorance: Most users are not tech savvy and cannot be expected to know how all this works - so they cannot reasonably know they are making a bad bargain. I am not sympathetic to this. The reason is that in all the years Facebook has been in existence, I have talked to and educated many average folks about the potential downsides of giving a private company so much information about you. Everyone I spoke to was quite OK with the whole concept. Not one person felt it was problematic. So not only do I not have a reason to think FB is "objectively bad", I cannot even invoke social proof! Whatever bad people keep claiming is coming out of FB is something most of the population does not think is bad. I have few sympathies for the (very few) people who are whining about it, because their behavior is similar to irresponsible adults who continually make bad decisions and have lives wrecked as a result, and then expect to get bailed out. Like not buying earthquake insurance in an earthquake zone and then demanding compensation when they lose their house. Facebook did not become what they did by being clever against their users. They got there by working with them. Any discussion of issues about Facebook without implicating the users who happily helped them is biased. Finally, and perhaps the most controversial part of my comment: Let's not kid ourselves. People are upset about this because it helped Trump more than any real concern about our privacy. Had a more likeable candidate (Obama, etc) used data from CA to help win an election, I would expect a fraction of the coverage this is getting right now. In fact, I think Obama did heavily utilize these services in 2008 and 2012 - just not as effectively as Trump's campaign did. If anything, Trump's campaign was merely more effective.

sudouser 8y ago

Facebook is a textbook on dark ux and addiction

chillacy 8y ago
I could see someone saying that the ends justify the means. Check out this line of thought: 1. I support opt-in by default organ donation because even though it's a "dark pattern", it creates the most public good. 2. I think developing AI will lead to lots of good things. Therefore I think the ends justify the means.
- sudouser 8y ago
  yes, sadly people in the tech space don’t put a lot of thought in the consequences of their actions in the long term. Ie do we really need more engagement in video games even if customers forget to eat??
sudouser 8y ago
pinterest too