7 ms·

Based on my brief time at FB (in 2016-2017), FB is not evil. MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. Using this as a major piece of positioning/propaganda

by Maro 8y ago

Based on my brief time at FB (in 2016-2017), FB is not evil. MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. Using this as a major piece of positioning/propaganda is not going to work for Spiegel. Also, if they ever want to make money, they'll be playing the exact same game as FB. That's going to be tough, as by now Snapchat is just a feature (of FB). Also, I can tell you, FB employees are laser focused on executing and making a measurable impact (and getting a big bonus), there's no group therapy bitching. I don't have any love/hate for Snapchat, but it is going to be very tough for them. (I don't own either stock.)

venantius 8y ago
I think you're missing the point. It's not about MZ's motivations or even how FB thinks about things internally. It's about the perception by significant numbers of people - and, critically, their elected representatives - that FB is fundamentally shady. There is a very good chance the path we're on ends with FB and potentially all of the social networks being considerably more regulated than they are currently, and I'd argue GDPR shows that we're already well on our way down that path.
- Maro 8y ago
  Re regulation: I think regulation wouldn't help Snapchat, as any regulation would also apply to them. Actually, you could even argue that it's harder for a small(er) company to comply to regulation. (And btw. regulation is good, at this point MZ also thinks it's good and wants it.) Re people think FB is shady: that seems to be true, but FB's MAU and DAU keeps going up, whereas Snapchat's has stalled. Actions speak louder than words, literally. I'm not saying "Snapchat is f-cked", I'm just saying it will be very tough for them.
- clay_the_ripper 8y ago
  Although this seems like a popular opinion here, the only thing that concerns me about Facebook is the potential for the govt to get access to the data fb has on me. I actually trust fb with my data because I know that they don’t care what I do online and no one will ever look at it individually. They are just going to Hoover up as much data as possible to target me with better ads, but it’s not like a human being is looking at my data, it’s just a bunch of ML code. However if the govt can subpoena them and I’m on trial, the prosecution could probably make anyone look like a phsychopath and twist the data to look however they want.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    What about where Facebook has wholesaled your information to companies like Cambridge Analytica? You could say they "learned their lesson" and will focus on ads now, but this pattern of behavior is exactly why people distrust Facebook and find it shady.
    - Maro 8y ago
      Re "Facebook has wholesaled your information": FB does not sell user data (it doesn't need to, it makes so much on ads). CA gained user information on people who installed one of their FB apps whose purpose was to specifically get user data, and additionally because of a shitty choice FB made, it allowed apps like this to also access friends-of-friends data, afaik. Additionally, there was no monitoring in place to detect when an app is mass-downloading user data [through the API]. Overall, I think the most accurate thing to say is that CA was "scraping" user information, saying it like "Facebook has wholesaled your information" is misleading, nothing was "sold" by FB.
      - bduerst 8y ago
        Oh no, Facebook sold 50M users worth of data to Cambridge Analytica through API access. The fact that FB didn't charge more to make it comparable to ads revenue is their own fault. The user data access was a feature, meant to entice more companies like CA to use Facebook APIs. Again, this flagrant violation of privacy is why people distrust Facebook, because they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth. I take it you work at Facebook, right?
        Maro 8y ago
        Re "Facebook sold API access to Cambridge Analytica": it was free, CA didn't pay any money to FB, they simply had an app on FB. Re "they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth": that's very fair criticism imo. I would just note that "fork over" here means "give access to apps on the platform". Also, they changed this mechanism years ago, this scraping vector is no longer around. Re "I take it you work at Facebook, right?": as I wrote in the original comment, I worked there for 18 months in 2016-2017, I no longer work there nor do I own any stock. I'm a heavy FB user since 2013 when I got divorced, the net of FB for me as a user is very positive, every day. Based on seeing FB internally, I think it's a great company, and I'm comfortable to entrust them my data (I was a Data Engineer, so I have an idea what they do with data).
samstave 8y ago
The correct phrase, IMO, would be "cumulative shadiness" for FB... Individually, and within groups, the work of the employees and teams at FB is nothing short of amazing (and apple, google, etc)... cumulatively though? The nature of these companies are not in the best interests of individual users, and when looked at the power and impact the company as a whole has over any individual in specific, is pretty obviously not in the favor of the individual. The only problem that I have with anything related to the internet reality, is that it is no longer possible to not be connected to it and have any modicum semblance of a modern existence.
- Maro 8y ago
  I have a great time on FB/Messenger. It's a tool, it's up to everybody to use it in a way that is a net positive for them. I have friends/acquintances in 10+ cities, and it's a great way to keep in touch. As you mention, this "way" is very different then if we would meet in person, but that is out of the question, as we are separated by 1,000 - 10,000 km. The alternative, on average, is not to hear anything about these old friends and never meet them, lose touch, and that's the end of it. That's what happened with people who are not on FB (and living away).
  - codegoblins 8y ago
    If only there were other ways to send messages to people over the internet
    - derefr 8y ago
      It's the discovery mechanism that's unique to Facebook. Other messaging services: tell someone your username on it (when you ever happen to run into them again, I guess.) Facebook Messenger: search for their name on Facebook, find the one with the right profile picture, hit "send message." Facebook is the modern-day White Pages, except for the entire planet. And that's the part that makes it so hard to "quit Facebook": you're essentially erasing your entry from said White Pages, so people that want to connect to you by name can no longer do so (unless you're famous enough for Google to pull up your Twitter when people search your name; or you know enough about SEO for people to find your personal-brand website/blog when people search your name.)
barrkel 8y ago
You know, capitalist food producers don't need to be evil. All they need do is keep tuning their food, and a blind process of optimization will lead to addictive foods that people eat until they're obese, because that's what maximizes profits for the food industry. It's not much different for Facebook. A blind process of engagement and relevance optimization leads to a more addictive product that steals more and more of your attention. It's also not much different for Google. A blind process of information gathering leads to a more privacy violating product. Different companies have different optimization processes depending on their business models, and they don't need to be made out of evil or have malevolent intent to end up having (potentially) evil outcomes.
- Maro 8y ago
  People are in charge of their own diet. People are in charge of their own time, how they spend it, on the Internet or offline. Blaming big corporations and capitalism is a sorry excuse for making bad decisions.
  - ovi256 8y ago
    Given the FDA and similar regulators exist, that's patently false.
    - eseehausen 8y ago
      Also given the (hundreds of) billions of advertising dollars spent on shaping consumer tastes/desires when it comes to food.
  - rahoulb 8y ago
    If people had perfect information and were rational.
  - usepgp 8y ago
    And the people will collectively vote for representatives who hand smack downs to these companies.
  - 8y ago
Yizahi 8y ago
There is unfortunately a big disconnect between C-level people and regular users. C-levels believe, truly believe, that they are creating a good thing with spying(1) on users to create more and more customized web experience and of course custom ads. They also consider ads as good in general. (Some) users think that instead it's an uncontrolled full speed descent towards mountain cliff. Other users just aren't thinking about this at all, but I highly doubt that any one of them would ever join side of C-levels in this. (1) I'm using correct word instead of what C-levels prefer, because "metadata is spying" obviously. Just like it is spying even if I don't record your private conversations, but "only" stalk you 24/7 from afar and record all around you, who you communicate with etc.
- Yizahi 8y ago
  Here is a more detailed opinion on (1) written by Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_survei.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_surv...
justfor1comment 8y ago
> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. But results matter. If I am trying really hard not to kill people but inadvertently kill a few while providing employment for thousands of soldiers, won't a judge completely ignore that good side of me when sentencing? This is why we need laws and regulations to prevent FB from inadvertently killing democracy.
chrischen 8y ago
Nobody will tell you straight up they are evil. It’s the things they do, that they may not even be aware of. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/22/facebook-removing-onavo-from-ios-app-store/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/22/facebook-removing-onavo...
- aaroninsf 8y ago
  This. Many of Zuckerberg's public statements, which are presumably largely considered and vetted, display a profound (I would say willful) naivety–political, social, psychological. The presumption that it's "just business" and that the culture at large should if it wants different behavior change the rules is going to prove the epitaph of this generation of "technology" companies. The sad part is that absent internal regulation and correction, the inevitable result will be regulatory backlash and the quelling of the next generations' wiser efforts. It's already well underway in the EU. Once the traitors are out and with them that -sshat Pai is gone, you can expect a time of reckoning cum payback and there is no more obvious shiny target than Facebook. The unrelenting drip of scandals, married to tin-eared and hollow-sounding reassurances, is building up quite the pyre. Aside: a close family member who had personal access to MZ quit recently. Their take is quite different: at the executive level, many people know exactly what they're doing and why it's unethical shading into illegal.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
skywhopper 8y ago
You don't have to actively wish ill on society to damage it. The thing is, Zuckerberg has a level of power that in many ways is unprecedented. I don't think he has poor intentions, but his and Facebook's naivete about the impacts of their every decision, and the emergent properties of the systems they are creating, make them truly dangerous.
gowld 8y ago
I don't think that what MZ thinks is the right thing is the right thing. That's what evil means.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
"Evil" is a poor concept. Intention is mostly irrelevant, actions and outcomes are more important. If your actions contribute to "bad things" happening, if you are well aware that this is the case, and if you do not adequately make changes to avoid having your actions contribute to bad outcomes then you are complicit. Facebook is complicit in numerous "bad things", ranging from election interference, the spread of conspiracy theories and hatred, and crimes against humanity including genocide. The fact that FB does not take this complicity seriously or to heart is a resounding indictment of the entire organization. Whether it is "evil" or not, it is complicit in an enormous amount of malfeasance.
drb91 8y ago
If you have to trust the CEO, you’re gonna get burned. They have different interests than you. The only thing you should trust him to do is make more money if possible.
marichards 8y ago
Facebook is evil. Obviously, the "devil" is evil, but is his finger? Is his kneecap? Is his moment eating lunch? We don't judge an entity as evil or not because all components are not evil, we judge it based on its broad activity. Much of the devil's components might not know how evil what's in his head is. Facebook created a social network, great, but it used it as a mass surveillance system, without user consent, to spy on some of the most sensitive parts of people's lives. It spied on those who didn't even use the service. It helped those who'd harm society target those most vulnerable with lies. It offered discrimination as a service with audience targeting. It abused its monopoly. It threatened those that would reveal the truth with lawsuits. It corrupted the security of financial and health services online. It used it's audience for psychological experimentation and targeted their vulnerability to addiction. Facebook is evil, but much of what it and many of its employees do day to day may seem like nothing worse than flexing a knee.
justicezyx 8y ago
I dont think you use the evil consistently in the message.
inferiorhuman 8y ago
> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. Since when? This is at the top of my Reddit front page right now: https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve-got-to-admit-the-way-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-those-email-accounts-was-pretty-darn-cool-2010-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve... The lede: > Last week, we reported that, as a sophomore at Harvard, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg used Facebook members' login information to break into their private email accounts and read their emails. Yes, it's an old story, but Zuck has been very plainly amoral for a long time now.

by Maro 8y ago

venantius 8y ago

I think you're missing the point. It's not about MZ's motivations or even how FB thinks about things internally. It's about the perception by significant numbers of people - and, critically, their elected representatives - that FB is fundamentally shady. There is a very good chance the path we're on ends with FB and potentially all of the social networks being considerably more regulated than they are currently, and I'd argue GDPR shows that we're already well on our way down that path.

Maro 8y ago
Re regulation: I think regulation wouldn't help Snapchat, as any regulation would also apply to them. Actually, you could even argue that it's harder for a small(er) company to comply to regulation. (And btw. regulation is good, at this point MZ also thinks it's good and wants it.) Re people think FB is shady: that seems to be true, but FB's MAU and DAU keeps going up, whereas Snapchat's has stalled. Actions speak louder than words, literally. I'm not saying "Snapchat is f-cked", I'm just saying it will be very tough for them.
clay_the_ripper 8y ago
Although this seems like a popular opinion here, the only thing that concerns me about Facebook is the potential for the govt to get access to the data fb has on me. I actually trust fb with my data because I know that they don’t care what I do online and no one will ever look at it individually. They are just going to Hoover up as much data as possible to target me with better ads, but it’s not like a human being is looking at my data, it’s just a bunch of ML code. However if the govt can subpoena them and I’m on trial, the prosecution could probably make anyone look like a phsychopath and twist the data to look however they want.
- bduerst 8y ago
  What about where Facebook has wholesaled your information to companies like Cambridge Analytica? You could say they "learned their lesson" and will focus on ads now, but this pattern of behavior is exactly why people distrust Facebook and find it shady.
  - Maro 8y ago
    Re "Facebook has wholesaled your information": FB does not sell user data (it doesn't need to, it makes so much on ads). CA gained user information on people who installed one of their FB apps whose purpose was to specifically get user data, and additionally because of a shitty choice FB made, it allowed apps like this to also access friends-of-friends data, afaik. Additionally, there was no monitoring in place to detect when an app is mass-downloading user data [through the API]. Overall, I think the most accurate thing to say is that CA was "scraping" user information, saying it like "Facebook has wholesaled your information" is misleading, nothing was "sold" by FB.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      Oh no, Facebook sold 50M users worth of data to Cambridge Analytica through API access. The fact that FB didn't charge more to make it comparable to ads revenue is their own fault. The user data access was a feature, meant to entice more companies like CA to use Facebook APIs. Again, this flagrant violation of privacy is why people distrust Facebook, because they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth. I take it you work at Facebook, right?
      - Maro 8y ago
        Re "Facebook sold API access to Cambridge Analytica": it was free, CA didn't pay any money to FB, they simply had an app on FB. Re "they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth": that's very fair criticism imo. I would just note that "fork over" here means "give access to apps on the platform". Also, they changed this mechanism years ago, this scraping vector is no longer around. Re "I take it you work at Facebook, right?": as I wrote in the original comment, I worked there for 18 months in 2016-2017, I no longer work there nor do I own any stock. I'm a heavy FB user since 2013 when I got divorced, the net of FB for me as a user is very positive, every day. Based on seeing FB internally, I think it's a great company, and I'm comfortable to entrust them my data (I was a Data Engineer, so I have an idea what they do with data).

samstave 8y ago

The correct phrase, IMO, would be "cumulative shadiness" for FB... Individually, and within groups, the work of the employees and teams at FB is nothing short of amazing (and apple, google, etc)... cumulatively though? The nature of these companies are not in the best interests of individual users, and when looked at the power and impact the company as a whole has over any individual in specific, is pretty obviously not in the favor of the individual. The only problem that I have with anything related to the internet reality, is that it is no longer possible to not be connected to it and have any modicum semblance of a modern existence.

Maro 8y ago
I have a great time on FB/Messenger. It's a tool, it's up to everybody to use it in a way that is a net positive for them. I have friends/acquintances in 10+ cities, and it's a great way to keep in touch. As you mention, this "way" is very different then if we would meet in person, but that is out of the question, as we are separated by 1,000 - 10,000 km. The alternative, on average, is not to hear anything about these old friends and never meet them, lose touch, and that's the end of it. That's what happened with people who are not on FB (and living away).
- codegoblins 8y ago
  If only there were other ways to send messages to people over the internet
  - derefr 8y ago
    It's the discovery mechanism that's unique to Facebook. Other messaging services: tell someone your username on it (when you ever happen to run into them again, I guess.) Facebook Messenger: search for their name on Facebook, find the one with the right profile picture, hit "send message." Facebook is the modern-day White Pages, except for the entire planet. And that's the part that makes it so hard to "quit Facebook": you're essentially erasing your entry from said White Pages, so people that want to connect to you by name can no longer do so (unless you're famous enough for Google to pull up your Twitter when people search your name; or you know enough about SEO for people to find your personal-brand website/blog when people search your name.)

barrkel 8y ago

You know, capitalist food producers don't need to be evil. All they need do is keep tuning their food, and a blind process of optimization will lead to addictive foods that people eat until they're obese, because that's what maximizes profits for the food industry. It's not much different for Facebook. A blind process of engagement and relevance optimization leads to a more addictive product that steals more and more of your attention. It's also not much different for Google. A blind process of information gathering leads to a more privacy violating product. Different companies have different optimization processes depending on their business models, and they don't need to be made out of evil or have malevolent intent to end up having (potentially) evil outcomes.

Maro 8y ago
People are in charge of their own diet. People are in charge of their own time, how they spend it, on the Internet or offline. Blaming big corporations and capitalism is a sorry excuse for making bad decisions.
- ovi256 8y ago
  Given the FDA and similar regulators exist, that's patently false.
  - eseehausen 8y ago
    Also given the (hundreds of) billions of advertising dollars spent on shaping consumer tastes/desires when it comes to food.
- rahoulb 8y ago
  If people had perfect information and were rational.
- usepgp 8y ago
  And the people will collectively vote for representatives who hand smack downs to these companies.
- 8y ago

Yizahi 8y ago

There is unfortunately a big disconnect between C-level people and regular users. C-levels believe, truly believe, that they are creating a good thing with spying(1) on users to create more and more customized web experience and of course custom ads. They also consider ads as good in general. (Some) users think that instead it's an uncontrolled full speed descent towards mountain cliff. Other users just aren't thinking about this at all, but I highly doubt that any one of them would ever join side of C-levels in this. (1) I'm using correct word instead of what C-levels prefer, because "metadata is spying" obviously. Just like it is spying even if I don't record your private conversations, but "only" stalk you 24/7 from afar and record all around you, who you communicate with etc.

Yizahi 8y ago
Here is a more detailed opinion on (1) written by Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_survei.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_surv...

justfor1comment 8y ago

> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. But results matter. If I am trying really hard not to kill people but inadvertently kill a few while providing employment for thousands of soldiers, won't a judge completely ignore that good side of me when sentencing? This is why we need laws and regulations to prevent FB from inadvertently killing democracy.

chrischen 8y ago

Nobody will tell you straight up they are evil. It’s the things they do, that they may not even be aware of. https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/22/facebook-removing-onavo-from-ios-app-store/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/22/facebook-removing-onavo...

aaroninsf 8y ago
This. Many of Zuckerberg's public statements, which are presumably largely considered and vetted, display a profound (I would say willful) naivety–political, social, psychological. The presumption that it's "just business" and that the culture at large should if it wants different behavior change the rules is going to prove the epitaph of this generation of "technology" companies. The sad part is that absent internal regulation and correction, the inevitable result will be regulatory backlash and the quelling of the next generations' wiser efforts. It's already well underway in the EU. Once the traitors are out and with them that -sshat Pai is gone, you can expect a time of reckoning cum payback and there is no more obvious shiny target than Facebook. The unrelenting drip of scandals, married to tin-eared and hollow-sounding reassurances, is building up quite the pyre. Aside: a close family member who had personal access to MZ quit recently. Their take is quite different: at the executive level, many people know exactly what they're doing and why it's unethical shading into illegal.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

skywhopper 8y ago

You don't have to actively wish ill on society to damage it. The thing is, Zuckerberg has a level of power that in many ways is unprecedented. I don't think he has poor intentions, but his and Facebook's naivete about the impacts of their every decision, and the emergent properties of the systems they are creating, make them truly dangerous.

gowld 8y ago

I don't think that what MZ thinks is the right thing is the right thing. That's what evil means.

InclinedPlane 8y ago

"Evil" is a poor concept. Intention is mostly irrelevant, actions and outcomes are more important. If your actions contribute to "bad things" happening, if you are well aware that this is the case, and if you do not adequately make changes to avoid having your actions contribute to bad outcomes then you are complicit. Facebook is complicit in numerous "bad things", ranging from election interference, the spread of conspiracy theories and hatred, and crimes against humanity including genocide. The fact that FB does not take this complicity seriously or to heart is a resounding indictment of the entire organization. Whether it is "evil" or not, it is complicit in an enormous amount of malfeasance.

drb91 8y ago

If you have to trust the CEO, you’re gonna get burned. They have different interests than you. The only thing you should trust him to do is make more money if possible.

marichards 8y ago

Facebook is evil. Obviously, the "devil" is evil, but is his finger? Is his kneecap? Is his moment eating lunch? We don't judge an entity as evil or not because all components are not evil, we judge it based on its broad activity. Much of the devil's components might not know how evil what's in his head is. Facebook created a social network, great, but it used it as a mass surveillance system, without user consent, to spy on some of the most sensitive parts of people's lives. It spied on those who didn't even use the service. It helped those who'd harm society target those most vulnerable with lies. It offered discrimination as a service with audience targeting. It abused its monopoly. It threatened those that would reveal the truth with lawsuits. It corrupted the security of financial and health services online. It used it's audience for psychological experimentation and targeted their vulnerability to addiction. Facebook is evil, but much of what it and many of its employees do day to day may seem like nothing worse than flexing a knee.

justicezyx 8y ago

I dont think you use the evil consistently in the message.

inferiorhuman 8y ago

> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. Since when? This is at the top of my Reddit front page right now: https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve-got-to-admit-the-way-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-those-email-accounts-was-pretty-darn-cool-2010-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve... The lede: > Last week, we reported that, as a sophomore at Harvard, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg used Facebook members' login information to break into their private email accounts and read their emails. Yes, it's an old story, but Zuck has been very plainly amoral for a long time now.