6 ms·

This Times piece should be taken seriously by FB, it's shareholders, employees, and users. With good sourcing, this paints a very immature picture of the compan

This Times piece should be taken seriously by FB, it's shareholders, employees, and users. With good sourcing, this paints a very immature picture of the company, from leadership on down to the users. Though the article uses the Russian interference as the launching off point, in my reading, it seems that these attacks on our democracy are essentially waived off. That the most pressing issue for Zuck was not that the families of his senior staff were being fooled (along with the rest of the voting public), but that his company may be ruined. This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money. Good Lord. Where is the maturity? Where are the adults? Zuck seems like he's still 24 here, bopping about feeding calves and 'listening'. At least write up a report on your summer vacation. The dire situations that the company (and the government) is in seems to be only taken as far as the mirrors these actors look into. What absolute children.

fossuser 8y ago
From people that work there they are hiring unlimited headcount to work on integrity teams - the goal of which is to stop the kind of manipulation that happened in the 2016 election. Given the decisions Facebook has made Zuck seems like a really good CEO and when FB makes something their focus they usually pull it off - fixing mobile, instagram moves against snapchat, etc. The impression I get from people that work there is that it's not just talking points.
- Balgair 8y ago
  That is fantastic to hear. All media, even the Times, should be looked at critically and has biases. If it is true that they are putting a lot more of their site through scrutiny, that bodes well for the future use of social media in general. It is unfortunate that this job will be largely thankless though. Like in plumbing, you'll only notice the bad jobs, not the good work.
- headsoup 8y ago
  Are these people in the PR department? Because FB's outward behaviour and actions don't seem to reflect your statements And hiring 'unlimited headcount' is usually a sign of ticking a box and not actually understanding what needs to be done, i.e. "what do you mean it's still a problem, look at all the people we threw at this!"
  - fossuser 8y ago
    They’re friends that work there - software engineers. The headcount issue was a friend saying they were trying to get more people on their team and the integrity teams had it easy because they could get more people easily. There was also a lot of internal recruiting to get people working on the integrity teams.
- bostik 8y ago
  > the goal of which is to stop the kind of manipulation that happened That's the problem, right there. FB, as a company, believes they can somehow stop propaganda/agitprop from being disseminated on their platform. They are desperately trying to apply pre-emptive filtering, and will fail. They have no desire to actually work on improving the situation. Once someone has been subjected to this kind of messaging, FB will do nothing to educate the victims. The aim should be two-fold: to minimise damage (100% prevention is just not possible), and to heal the damage done. But no, that would require them to take responsibility. I have talked with some FB people who are hiring for these integrity teams. When I asked about whether they are willing to take responsibility and educate their users to prevent further damage, the answer was - and I quote: "we don't do that".
  - fossuser 8y ago
    They do do that - they have fact checking things below stories and are trying different things to make that better.
roymurdock 8y ago
less of a question of maturity (being self-sufficient, which Facebook and its employees clearly are), more of integrity integrity implies that you are unified or "integrated" as a part of a stronger whole, and working towards the betterment of that whole that you share certain core values and ethics with another group of people in the past large companies might have been integrated and integral to a certain city, region, community, country, cause, etc. - or as you put it, "our democracy" facebook, and most large tech companies, no longer have or need such ties towards individuals, communities, or countries they pay their taxes in all different jurisdictions (or sometimes mostly just in ireland) and then are free to do as they like to their users who keep coming back for more screentime because they're addicted facebook has no sense of care for the user, or a sense of being in it together as a relationship, nor is it really possible to have one at Facebook's scale i wouldn't be surprised if Zuckerberg still considers the majority of Facebook's users "dumb fucks" and sheep to be monetized, an ethos that will inevitably trickle down through the company from the top facebook's integrity is aligned with their customers, the advertisers, and that's about it we can only hope that facebook employees are doing what they can to preserve their own integrity with their friends/family/community, and that this push is strong enough to shape the development of the platform for the better, instead of towards further addictive, attention-grabbing, echo chamber construction
bilbo0s 8y ago
>This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money... ??? Isn't that the modus operandi of every company. I'm just thinking in my head back through serious crises involving companies, and all of the ones I can recall have senior management concerned about the same thing. (Losing money, and getting in trouble.) From Exxon Valdez, to Deepwater Horizon (BP), definitely crises like Taylor, Enron, and the recent banking system unpleasantness. In fact, I remember a more bald faced arrogance out of the banker community. I still remember them sending the legislature of the United States a 3 page letter to sign off on, authorizing the transfer of $1 Trillion to them within the following 24 hours. Now THAT was childish arrogance. (Or maybe just the reality of their power? I don't really know which?)
- ardy42 8y ago
  >> This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money... > ??? > Isn't that the modus operandi of every company. Does that make it alright?
fthssht 8y ago
What is the extent of the Russian interference really though? Studies show it didn't change the outcome. We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or whether it was an insider as implied by Assange and security experts who looked at how fast the information was downloaded. We know Russia did take both sides on issues like black lives matter to "cause division" We know they created a "Buff Bernie" meme, but it really feels like a massive excuse by the Democrats for an embarrassing failure. The whole thing at this point has come to feel comical. Am I missing something or is this still all a bunch of nonsense strewn around for clicks and ratings?
- nkassis 8y ago
  Outside the now, well supported evidence of Russia's involvement in the hacking of the DNC emails we have massive donations to groups like the NRA, political campaigns and hiring people like Maria Butina to influence politicians. We've seen them try to meet with Trump's family in order to provide them with damaging information on Hillary clinton in exchange for dropping sanctions. We've also already had indictments of people within the Russian government that were apparently involved with the disinformation campaigns. With lots of information about their groups and US based organizations they used. You have to ignore the information available to you to claim the extent of their interference wasn't broad.
  - neonate 8y ago
    Well repeated is not well supported.
    - nkassis 8y ago
      The claims aren't just repeated the evidence for it has expanded over time. Like I said you really have to try at this point to ignore everything that has come out.
- user3543643 8y ago
  Some citations would help.
sjg007 8y ago
The two part Frontline episode on PBS really illustrates your point. Facebook needs to take a stand.
- Balgair 8y ago
  Any link to the videos? I'd love to see them.
  - skeptic_69 8y ago
    2-parts. features a ton of interviews with high level executives including the facebook "head of growth" and alex stamos who was the security chief. I thought stamos came out of the interview seeming pretty forthright and direct (he no longer works at facebook). the other executives did not come off so well... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/

fossuser 8y ago

From people that work there they are hiring unlimited headcount to work on integrity teams - the goal of which is to stop the kind of manipulation that happened in the 2016 election. Given the decisions Facebook has made Zuck seems like a really good CEO and when FB makes something their focus they usually pull it off - fixing mobile, instagram moves against snapchat, etc. The impression I get from people that work there is that it's not just talking points.

Balgair 8y ago
That is fantastic to hear. All media, even the Times, should be looked at critically and has biases. If it is true that they are putting a lot more of their site through scrutiny, that bodes well for the future use of social media in general. It is unfortunate that this job will be largely thankless though. Like in plumbing, you'll only notice the bad jobs, not the good work.
headsoup 8y ago
Are these people in the PR department? Because FB's outward behaviour and actions don't seem to reflect your statements And hiring 'unlimited headcount' is usually a sign of ticking a box and not actually understanding what needs to be done, i.e. "what do you mean it's still a problem, look at all the people we threw at this!"
- fossuser 8y ago
  They’re friends that work there - software engineers. The headcount issue was a friend saying they were trying to get more people on their team and the integrity teams had it easy because they could get more people easily. There was also a lot of internal recruiting to get people working on the integrity teams.
bostik 8y ago
> the goal of which is to stop the kind of manipulation that happened That's the problem, right there. FB, as a company, believes they can somehow stop propaganda/agitprop from being disseminated on their platform. They are desperately trying to apply pre-emptive filtering, and will fail. They have no desire to actually work on improving the situation. Once someone has been subjected to this kind of messaging, FB will do nothing to educate the victims. The aim should be two-fold: to minimise damage (100% prevention is just not possible), and to heal the damage done. But no, that would require them to take responsibility. I have talked with some FB people who are hiring for these integrity teams. When I asked about whether they are willing to take responsibility and educate their users to prevent further damage, the answer was - and I quote: "we don't do that".
- fossuser 8y ago
  They do do that - they have fact checking things below stories and are trying different things to make that better.

roymurdock 8y ago

less of a question of maturity (being self-sufficient, which Facebook and its employees clearly are), more of integrity integrity implies that you are unified or "integrated" as a part of a stronger whole, and working towards the betterment of that whole that you share certain core values and ethics with another group of people in the past large companies might have been integrated and integral to a certain city, region, community, country, cause, etc. - or as you put it, "our democracy" facebook, and most large tech companies, no longer have or need such ties towards individuals, communities, or countries they pay their taxes in all different jurisdictions (or sometimes mostly just in ireland) and then are free to do as they like to their users who keep coming back for more screentime because they're addicted facebook has no sense of care for the user, or a sense of being in it together as a relationship, nor is it really possible to have one at Facebook's scale i wouldn't be surprised if Zuckerberg still considers the majority of Facebook's users "dumb fucks" and sheep to be monetized, an ethos that will inevitably trickle down through the company from the top facebook's integrity is aligned with their customers, the advertisers, and that's about it we can only hope that facebook employees are doing what they can to preserve their own integrity with their friends/family/community, and that this push is strong enough to shape the development of the platform for the better, instead of towards further addictive, attention-grabbing, echo chamber construction

bilbo0s 8y ago

>This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money... ??? Isn't that the modus operandi of every company. I'm just thinking in my head back through serious crises involving companies, and all of the ones I can recall have senior management concerned about the same thing. (Losing money, and getting in trouble.) From Exxon Valdez, to Deepwater Horizon (BP), definitely crises like Taylor, Enron, and the recent banking system unpleasantness. In fact, I remember a more bald faced arrogance out of the banker community. I still remember them sending the legislature of the United States a 3 page letter to sign off on, authorizing the transfer of $1 Trillion to them within the following 24 hours. Now THAT was childish arrogance. (Or maybe just the reality of their power? I don't really know which?)

ardy42 8y ago
>> This extremely serious, and continuing, attack on the public seems to not really matter to any of the parties involved, only that they may get 'in trouble' or lose money... > ??? > Isn't that the modus operandi of every company. Does that make it alright?

fthssht 8y ago

What is the extent of the Russian interference really though? Studies show it didn't change the outcome. We still don't really know who hacked the DNC, whether it was Russia as a hand selected group of people from intelligence agencies included was likely, or whether it was an insider as implied by Assange and security experts who looked at how fast the information was downloaded. We know Russia did take both sides on issues like black lives matter to "cause division" We know they created a "Buff Bernie" meme, but it really feels like a massive excuse by the Democrats for an embarrassing failure. The whole thing at this point has come to feel comical. Am I missing something or is this still all a bunch of nonsense strewn around for clicks and ratings?

nkassis 8y ago
Outside the now, well supported evidence of Russia's involvement in the hacking of the DNC emails we have massive donations to groups like the NRA, political campaigns and hiring people like Maria Butina to influence politicians. We've seen them try to meet with Trump's family in order to provide them with damaging information on Hillary clinton in exchange for dropping sanctions. We've also already had indictments of people within the Russian government that were apparently involved with the disinformation campaigns. With lots of information about their groups and US based organizations they used. You have to ignore the information available to you to claim the extent of their interference wasn't broad.
- neonate 8y ago
  Well repeated is not well supported.
  - nkassis 8y ago
    The claims aren't just repeated the evidence for it has expanded over time. Like I said you really have to try at this point to ignore everything that has come out.
user3543643 8y ago
Some citations would help.

sjg007 8y ago

The two part Frontline episode on PBS really illustrates your point. Facebook needs to take a stand.

Balgair 8y ago
Any link to the videos? I'd love to see them.
- skeptic_69 8y ago
  2-parts. features a ton of interviews with high level executives including the facebook "head of growth" and alex stamos who was the security chief. I thought stamos came out of the interview seeming pretty forthright and direct (he no longer works at facebook). the other executives did not come off so well... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/facebook-dilemma/