5 ms·

> So is working at Google, Amazon and probably 90% of the big corps of the world in many sectors While Google and Amazon both have their ethical problems and s

> So is working at Google, Amazon and probably 90% of the big corps of the world in many sectors While Google and Amazon both have their ethical problems and serious anti-trust issues, Facebook is in a league of its own. The complete, cavalier disregard for the consequences of its own actions as long as they get theirs is utterly unconscionable. Unlike Google or Amazon, they add nothing of real value to society to balance the abuses they bring with them. All their labors are geared towards extracting the utility of other creators (their acquisitions like Instagram or WhatsApp) or to suck the time and attention out of people through addictive mechanisms. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow a hundred federated online platforms to function as generic address books and life-updaters would crop up over night, and just about every one of them would be better. You would have to look at lines of business like Big Tobacco to find another field of similar moral perfidy.

eanzenberg 8y ago
That's, just like, your opinion man.
- aonwoajdndj 8y ago
  We are all in the world of opinions here. Share your opinion or criticize his. Comments like this are not helping us make progress on these issues.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Sure, let's all sling FUD around based on anecdotes and fake data. Let's shame people earning a salary working at a company and trying to solve real problems. Sure FB does some shitty things but honestly so does every large company out there. It's impossible to get to that massive size without breaking a couple eggs here and there. People expect saints when saints are imaginary. The baseline to measure cannot be "perfection".
    - losteric 8y ago
      > People expect saints when saints are imaginary. The baseline to measure cannot be "perfection". You're putting up a strawman. The baseline is other big tech companies (MS/GOOG/AMZN/AAPL) - companies that are definitely not saints. Amazon/Google's ethical tradeoffs are debatable, but they do deliver benefits that are unmatched in the market. Facebook? Not really.
    - quickben 8y ago
      "based on anecdotes and fake data." ... "Sure FB does some shitty things". So which one is it? You are contradicting yourself.
  - basch 8y ago
    Maybe I've just bought into the image Mark wants to give off, but I believe facebook's naivety in its actions to largely result from Mark's optimism and lack of skepticism. He comes off as a person with hope and belief that things are good and positive. He doesnt come off as a cynical, worst case scenario type person. Time and time again, something happens, he writes that "it isnt so bad" and THEN evidence comes out that it’s a bit worse. Usually the press invents a new level of hyperbolic hysteria, pretending it’s even worse than it is for ratings. BUT whether its "fake news" or "data misuse" Mark is wrong because he believes all else equal, good is more powerful than malignant, and I think he is wrong. Mark has a megaphone, he can amplify whatever the fuck he wants. Any story, any fact, any narrative. And he chooses to be passive, inactive, reactive, and let the algorithm decide, because he can maintain a position of faultlessness, forever blameless, as long as he can point a finger at a math problem, a glitch, or an oversight. He speaks in response to controversy, not preemptively. The answer to election manipulation, fake news, etc, is to find better ways to rate and surface GOOD content. What SHOULD people be reading. Not, "well we only show what your friends posted, so blame your friends." Why is every person with money buying a newspaper? Because they have realized what Mark hasnt. To speak out, without prompt, about what is right and good. That means having an agenda, that means having bias, that means having an opinion. Mark cant have an opinion, because is trying to please 7 billion people at once, and has chosen to favor blandness and inoffensiveness. I believe he has made a mistake; both in his lack of pessimism towards collective human behavior, trusting monkeys with typewriters to come together on their own; and for not having the courage to come out and say more offensive things. He should have torn the senate apart like Howard Hughes in The Aviator. Instead he played nice, hoping they would soon forget about him. Quick plug to sites that DO surface good content daily: What Mark SHOULD be doing. A facebook front page, a TIGHTLY curated (looking at you msn.com!) of what people SHOULD be paying attention to, things that actually matter to humanity, avoiding stories and serialized controversy the news cycle invents for its own riches. https://www.aldaily.com/ https://www.aldaily.com/ https://www.techmeme.com/river https://www.techmeme.com/river https://redef.com/channel/media/feed https://redef.com/channel/media/feed https://longform.org/ https://longform.org/ https://longreads.com/ https://longreads.com/ [I don't think Mark is being insincere, or speaking in bad faith, when he says Facebook takes security seriously. Of all companies to scale quickly, facebook has not been one that appears to allow technical security debt to accumulate, unlike just about any non tech company in the world.]
- glitcher 8y ago
  The dude abides.
rsp1984 8y ago
While Google and Amazon both have their ethical problems and serious anti-trust issues, Facebook is in a league of its own. Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" and "not evil". That's why, after all, my level of respect for FB is still a lot higher than for Google.
- blueprint 8y ago
  > Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" They don't? News to me.
  - unicornporn 8y ago
    >> Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" > They don't? News to me. News indeed. Being good IS their mission statement. "Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together."
- losteric 8y ago
  > Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" and "not evil" Hah, good one! But just in case you're serious: Did you see Zuckerberg's Senate hearing?
arez 8y ago
Facebook is just the first that stumbles over all the sh*t that they doing. Amazon with their slavery workforce isn't better and Google was pretty good as keeping everyone happy and creating services but they're as bad as everyone else. I think we will see Google running into similar problems soon. They have also the problem of not having enough guidance anymore, sergey and larry don't care at all and never really wanted to build such a big evil corp. the only one left at the top is sundar but I don't think he can manage to steer such a beast of corporation into shallower water. but I'm also hoping that it breaks apart and we find a better way then invading peoples privacy to monetize platforms
- naravara 8y ago
  I'd class Google and Amazon as being analogous to an industry like coal, oil, or railroads back in the robber baron days. They bring horrible externalities and dodgy/corrupt influences on our politics, but we also need them to keep the modern world running and build the future. The problems with them are larger problems with how we manage our economy and our industrial and labor policies. Facebook is more like Big Tobacco. They're purely malignant, continuing solely through adversarial relationships with their users meant to foster addiction or control the revenue streams of key industries like media and news. They're pirates. What benefits they provide, they have only ever made worse than other services and tools that predated them. >but I'm also hoping that it breaks apart and we find a better way then invading peoples privacy to monetize platforms Amen to that. Treating attention as a form of currency has been utterly corrosive to society.
Joakal 8y ago
What companies offer 500k+ and is ethical?
- jopsen 8y ago
  Ethical is open for debate.. I work at a big tech thing. But these also do a lot of good. Facebook keeps me more connected to old friends and family than ever before. It facilities communication and organization of events that would far more time consuming to do without Facebook. I hang out with loved ones more, because pinging them is on Facebook is easy. Sure, Facebook could be better. IMO ads in messenger is a cheap move, that won't play out well. But Facebook could also be a lot worse than it is. You're not going to rebuild the world from scratch. Nothing will ever be perfect -- but don't let that get in the way of better. Why not make it better from the inside? How is that not ethical?

eanzenberg 8y ago

That's, just like, your opinion man.

aonwoajdndj 8y ago
We are all in the world of opinions here. Share your opinion or criticize his. Comments like this are not helping us make progress on these issues.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Sure, let's all sling FUD around based on anecdotes and fake data. Let's shame people earning a salary working at a company and trying to solve real problems. Sure FB does some shitty things but honestly so does every large company out there. It's impossible to get to that massive size without breaking a couple eggs here and there. People expect saints when saints are imaginary. The baseline to measure cannot be "perfection".
  - losteric 8y ago
    > People expect saints when saints are imaginary. The baseline to measure cannot be "perfection". You're putting up a strawman. The baseline is other big tech companies (MS/GOOG/AMZN/AAPL) - companies that are definitely not saints. Amazon/Google's ethical tradeoffs are debatable, but they do deliver benefits that are unmatched in the market. Facebook? Not really.
  - quickben 8y ago
    "based on anecdotes and fake data." ... "Sure FB does some shitty things". So which one is it? You are contradicting yourself.
- basch 8y ago
  Maybe I've just bought into the image Mark wants to give off, but I believe facebook's naivety in its actions to largely result from Mark's optimism and lack of skepticism. He comes off as a person with hope and belief that things are good and positive. He doesnt come off as a cynical, worst case scenario type person. Time and time again, something happens, he writes that "it isnt so bad" and THEN evidence comes out that it’s a bit worse. Usually the press invents a new level of hyperbolic hysteria, pretending it’s even worse than it is for ratings. BUT whether its "fake news" or "data misuse" Mark is wrong because he believes all else equal, good is more powerful than malignant, and I think he is wrong. Mark has a megaphone, he can amplify whatever the fuck he wants. Any story, any fact, any narrative. And he chooses to be passive, inactive, reactive, and let the algorithm decide, because he can maintain a position of faultlessness, forever blameless, as long as he can point a finger at a math problem, a glitch, or an oversight. He speaks in response to controversy, not preemptively. The answer to election manipulation, fake news, etc, is to find better ways to rate and surface GOOD content. What SHOULD people be reading. Not, "well we only show what your friends posted, so blame your friends." Why is every person with money buying a newspaper? Because they have realized what Mark hasnt. To speak out, without prompt, about what is right and good. That means having an agenda, that means having bias, that means having an opinion. Mark cant have an opinion, because is trying to please 7 billion people at once, and has chosen to favor blandness and inoffensiveness. I believe he has made a mistake; both in his lack of pessimism towards collective human behavior, trusting monkeys with typewriters to come together on their own; and for not having the courage to come out and say more offensive things. He should have torn the senate apart like Howard Hughes in The Aviator. Instead he played nice, hoping they would soon forget about him. Quick plug to sites that DO surface good content daily: What Mark SHOULD be doing. A facebook front page, a TIGHTLY curated (looking at you msn.com!) of what people SHOULD be paying attention to, things that actually matter to humanity, avoiding stories and serialized controversy the news cycle invents for its own riches. https://www.aldaily.com/ https://www.aldaily.com/ https://www.techmeme.com/river https://www.techmeme.com/river https://redef.com/channel/media/feed https://redef.com/channel/media/feed https://longform.org/ https://longform.org/ https://longreads.com/ https://longreads.com/ [I don't think Mark is being insincere, or speaking in bad faith, when he says Facebook takes security seriously. Of all companies to scale quickly, facebook has not been one that appears to allow technical security debt to accumulate, unlike just about any non tech company in the world.]
glitcher 8y ago
The dude abides.

rsp1984 8y ago

While Google and Amazon both have their ethical problems and serious anti-trust issues, Facebook is in a league of its own. Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" and "not evil". That's why, after all, my level of respect for FB is still a lot higher than for Google.

blueprint 8y ago
> Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" They don't? News to me.
- unicornporn 8y ago
  >> Maybe, but at least Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" > They don't? News to me. News indeed. Being good IS their mission statement. "Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together."
losteric 8y ago
> Facebook doesn't actively try to manipulate you into believing that they're the "good guys" and "not evil" Hah, good one! But just in case you're serious: Did you see Zuckerberg's Senate hearing?

arez 8y ago

Facebook is just the first that stumbles over all the sh*t that they doing. Amazon with their slavery workforce isn't better and Google was pretty good as keeping everyone happy and creating services but they're as bad as everyone else. I think we will see Google running into similar problems soon. They have also the problem of not having enough guidance anymore, sergey and larry don't care at all and never really wanted to build such a big evil corp. the only one left at the top is sundar but I don't think he can manage to steer such a beast of corporation into shallower water. but I'm also hoping that it breaks apart and we find a better way then invading peoples privacy to monetize platforms

naravara 8y ago
I'd class Google and Amazon as being analogous to an industry like coal, oil, or railroads back in the robber baron days. They bring horrible externalities and dodgy/corrupt influences on our politics, but we also need them to keep the modern world running and build the future. The problems with them are larger problems with how we manage our economy and our industrial and labor policies. Facebook is more like Big Tobacco. They're purely malignant, continuing solely through adversarial relationships with their users meant to foster addiction or control the revenue streams of key industries like media and news. They're pirates. What benefits they provide, they have only ever made worse than other services and tools that predated them. >but I'm also hoping that it breaks apart and we find a better way then invading peoples privacy to monetize platforms Amen to that. Treating attention as a form of currency has been utterly corrosive to society.

Joakal 8y ago

What companies offer 500k+ and is ethical?

jopsen 8y ago
Ethical is open for debate.. I work at a big tech thing. But these also do a lot of good. Facebook keeps me more connected to old friends and family than ever before. It facilities communication and organization of events that would far more time consuming to do without Facebook. I hang out with loved ones more, because pinging them is on Facebook is easy. Sure, Facebook could be better. IMO ads in messenger is a cheap move, that won't play out well. But Facebook could also be a lot worse than it is. You're not going to rebuild the world from scratch. Nothing will ever be perfect -- but don't let that get in the way of better. Why not make it better from the inside? How is that not ethical?