6 ms·
Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?
- waterphone 8y agoI'm not going to tell anyone else what they should do, but I am unwilling to use or associate with any of their services or properties.
- vjeux 8y agoCould you explain why?
- waterphone 8y agoThe article explains why. Facebook is a genuinely evil company with genuinely evil people doing genuinely evil things to manipulate the world in negative ways, and I want nothing to do with them. They've been immoral/unethical from the start. They manipulate their users, cause genuine harm to people, the world, and democracy, and should not be rewarded with continued use of their services. Edit: Because people have been downvoting/flagging my comments, I'm no longer allowed to reply to people and continue the discussion.
- vjeux 8y agoI’m not sure that I read the same article. “For me at least, Facebook would have crossed a moral red line if it had, for example, intentionally sold the data of its users to Cambridge Analytica with the full knowledge that company would use the data subversively to influence a democratic election. Likewise, Facebook would have crossed a red line if it had intentionally assisted in the dissemination of hate speech in Myanmar. But the evidence indicates that Facebook did not intend for those things to occur on its platform.”
- dymk 8y agoThose are some mighty incredible claims. Care to defend them with proof?
- waterphone 8y agohttps://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46302140 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46302140 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingya-genocide-180313161609822.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambr... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke... https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-... Some of these are direct actions by the company. Some are unintended consequences. And this isn't even getting into the personal harm and unhealthy behavior that comes from use of Facebook and similar manipulative social media.
- hnuser355 8y agoI think Facebook is fine for the demographic its designers are/were (educated middle class and above elite). All of its problems seem to me to result from extending its service to the frankly deranged masses of humanity and not fencing them in enough.
- jvreagan 8y ago> They've been immoral/unethical from the start. Yeah, that's what I don't understand about the current outrage at Facebook. IMHO they are far ethically better today than they were say 6-10 years ago. I just don't understand the outrage today if its ok to do what they did several years ago. I mean, I left Facebook in 2011 due to their ethical issues.
- thrower123 8y agoNo. You can do whatever you want. Look twice, and then once more hard at anyone that tells you have a moral duty to do anything.
- adamnemecek 8y ago> Look twice, and then once at anyone that tells you have a moral duty to do anything. You are free to do whatever however moral duty does exist.
- blueboo 8y agoBeing in tech means never having to say you're sorry (because you can freely switch between being a libertarian to shirk responsibility or a collectivist to shirk responsibility)
- Hysterisis 8y agoYou pretty obviously can’t do whatever you want. From a legal perspective you’ll be arrested and prosecuted if you commit a crime. From a philosophical perspective you have a moral duty to do good, by virtue of the intrinsic definition of good (whatever that may be in your ethical framework). Even if your ethical system says you should only do what makes you happy, you still have a duty to fulfill that goal as it is internally equivalent to the concept of good.
- choot 8y agoYea, but it doesn't really happen. My friends were thinking about leaving Facebook (due to moral obligation) but they came to know that they'll be given VIP always on top account in Facebook's new dating service which will get them laid more often, so now they've changed their mind. People who are working at facebook i mean. See you don't even need to pay more. Downvoters: it seems you are not aware of the new fb dating service and that fb employees will be given priority accounts which will get executives/high rank employees laid more often
- prolikewh0a 8y agoDo you have any sources for the VIP claim?
- choot 8y ago>Do you have any sources for the VIP claim? Do the people talking at a local bar qualify as sources?
- dleslie 8y agoThat's an incredibly salacious allegation; though I can see it being a part of a greater strategy to tie Facebook employees tightly to the corporation by providing the fundamental levels on their hierarchy of needs. But... Do you have a credible source?
- choot 8y agoFacebook's dating service doesntt promise "getting laid" part. But it's consequence of every dating site in existence. Offering employees perk in your own service has never been illegal. Ford gave its employees ford cars. No one bat an eye lid.
- dang 8y agoWould you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or trollish comments to HN? If you don't, we're going to have to ban you again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- adamnemecek 8y agoBy the way I think it's possible to leave facebook while keeping messenger. At this point, I feel like most of the people I know who are on fb use it or messenger rather than anything else.
- hnuser355 8y agoIt is! That’s exactly what I’ve done. Who knows if this will continue indefinitely though.
- prolikewh0a 8y agoAre you really leaving Facebook at that point though? They're still collecting every bit of text you send to serve you ads and sell your data. If your friends will only message you on FB messenger, are they really that great of friends?
- codyb 8y agoI think messages aren't mined for advertising at this point. Doesn't mean that won't change, but their current policy states it isn't happening now. Secret messages can't be harvested, but aren't portable between devices.
- AndrewKemendo 8y agoI don't understand this disconnect. Messenger = Facebook. If you are deciding to "leave Facebook" as protest to the fact that: Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world then that means you need to leave Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp, tbh, Facebook (product), Oculus and every other Facebook owned property. I don't see how people aren't making this connection.
- adamnemecek 8y agoYou misunderstand. I understand that they are kind of the same thing, however when people leave fb proper, they are more likely to leave it altogether later.
- bsenftner 8y agoThis would be an interesting topic for an episode of "the Good Place".
- vjeux 8y agoThere seem to be at least one post every day on Hacker News that’s negative about Facebook. Does anyone here know why?
- matte_black 8y agoShort sellers.
- intopieces 8y agoIt’s because every day, someone submits a negative post and every day, people upvote them.
- waterphone 8y agoBecause Facebook is a horrible company and an increasing amount of information about just how bad they really are is coming to light lately.
- hpbd 8y agoI'm starting to suspect the media is extorting Facebook. "Give us better rates at ads, or we'll be badmouthing you for months".
- chronid 8y agoIt would be interesting to know how much money the NYT spends on Facebook ads, and how many visits (and as such profit) they receive from there. I doubt they report that in their quarterly calls with shareholders though.
- StevePerkins 8y agoWell first and foremost, there has always been primal hostility on HN and similar boards toward advertising, and anything with privacy concerns. Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat. Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".
- matte_black 8y agoWe have no more moral duty in leaving Facebook than we do in disabling our ad blockers.
- robert_foss 8y agoWell.. I don't know about your ad-blocker, but mine does not play any role in genocide. Unlike FB in Myanmar.
- matte_black 8y agoAd blockers are theft.
- dleslie 8y agoMy refusal to read or view content that has been provided to me is an exercising of my right to consent. Those providing the content are free to revoke their consent as well, and many do when ads fail to render. It is not theft to refuse to consent.
- peter_retief 8y agoI couldn't read the article because it has a paywall but I left facebook because it was ridiculous, not moral duty
- kyrra 8y agoIf you open the link in an incognito window, it should work.
- peter_retief 8y agoI will try that thanks!
- jppope 8y agoMan, NYtimes has really chilled out on their coverage of the tech companies...
- chronid 8y agoMaybe it improves their engagement metric.
- lake99 8y agoUgh! This is getting tiresome. Yes, NY Times hates Facebook. I get it. Can we please stop posting story after story about that here?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pfarnsworth 8y agoWhen will New York Times point their Eye of Sauron against the things that you enjoy? They have no business spreading their version of "morality" lest it become a slippery slope into a new religion. Facebook is an ad company. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. And even if they target you with ads, who cares? After decades of people saying "I don't notice the ads on web sites" all of a sudden web ads have the ability to take down countries? Don't dress it up as a "moral" issue, and plus, whose morality is the one judging this? If you pick at every single company, you can find things that give you a "moral duty" to leave. How far will they go? Love video games? It encourages violence and gambling, you have a moral duty to leave. Do you have moral duty to not use Amazon anymore because they don't treat their workers the way the NYT wants them to be treated? Love muscle cars? It kills the environment with pollution, you have a moral duty to leave. Love cooking? Why aren't you feeding the homeless instead, you have a moral duty to do that instead of wasting money on fancy food.
- icebraining 8y agoHow do you square this view with your public statement about having lost your respect for Yegge when he joined Grab? Weren't you doing the same thing as the NYT is doing here - voicing your opinion on what companies one should avoid for ethical reasons?
- pfarnsworth 8y agoNope, your analogy is deeply flawed. I'm not telling people that they have a moral obligation to do or think anything. I gave my opinion that I lost respect in Steve Yegge, because he was being a hypocrite. I didn't say "People should no longer respect Steve Yegge because he's a hypocrite". There's a profound difference between the two.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- icebraining 8y agoYou essentially said Steve Yegge had a moral obligation not to be an hypocrite, and therefore to not join Grab the way he did.
- freediver 8y agoI left FB in 2013 because of duty to myself. If anything you should stay on FB because of duty to others. FB made it clear that they are not able to control what happens on the platform, so it's on users. I would not like the idea of FB to fail (connect the world) but would like its current business model to fail (selling private information to highest bidder).
- chronid 8y ago> I would not like the idea of FB to fail (connect the world) but would like its current business model to fail (selling private information to highest bidder). They don't. This is completely against their business model (which is - from the perspective of the target, aka you and me - the same business model google has). They don't sell your information, they want all your information to sell advertisers the ability to target and tailor their ads to you (and convince advertisers to give them more data so they can target more efficiently). I don't understand why and how this trope keeps getting repeated, particularly among tech people. Just the fact they are collecting the data is bad (and incentivizing other business to throw their data in their databases), there is no reason for spewing FUD about what their business model is, or even touching how good/bad they are (or were years ago) at preventing that data from leaving their servers.
- hornetblack 8y agoThey sell targeted screen space seems more accurate.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zekevermillion 8y agoI don't use FB for aesthetic reasons not moral / ethical. But to extend this question, do we have a duty to stop using NYT b/c they use advertising that violates user privacy? To avoid watching Roman Polanski movies? Or the big question, do we have a duty to stop paying taxes b/c our money goes to pay for bombs 'n' guns? We live in a world where it is very difficult to limit our personal commerce to avoid indirect support for activities and people we may find repugnant. I am reminded of the Biblical parable of 'Render Unto Caesar'. While I applaud those who stand on principle, I do not condemn those (most of us) who find it necessary to separate personal from political.
- loxs 8y agoYes, we do need to stop paying taxes. The only problem is they put you in prison if you stop. We are slaves.
- rotskoff 8y agoThe article concludes that it is acceptable to stay on Facebook, but I take issue with its approach. Underlying the logic is a premise: that because Facebook is used by some to spread propaganda and promote hate, it is (at least in part) to blame for the illiberal trajectory of some Western democracies. For many, it is more simplistic: there is a belief that Facebook is to blame for our election outcome. Of course, it is extremely difficult to know how much "to blame" Facebook as opposed to traditional media, and conclusive facts will be impossible to obtain. Both lines of reasoning, it should be noted, neglect the possibility that the election was determined by the will of people under a non-democratic system via the electoral college. To me, the question is whether or not Facebook is a unique actor in this capacity. Does Facebook do something substantially different from other social media platforms or content providers that particularly undermines democratic values? I don't believe it does: Twitter spreads conspiracy theories, Snapchat is used for bullying and harassment, Google has comparable troves of data for sale to advertisers. While it has certainly had some public relations snafus, on the whole, as a platform it isn't that unique.
- newscracker 8y ago[Note: I have a hatred toward Facebook the company and what it has done with its products and strategy.] We have a moral duty to not do or support so many things, but we still do because of other people, social conditioning, believing that there's no better way, etc. Making binary decisions in life is not easy most of the time. On Facebook, my belief is that people ought to quit it on moral grounds, but there are no comprehensive equivalents to its features on facebook.com for them to move to. There are plenty of alternatives for WhatsApp and FB Messenger that are far, far better than those. Instagram could also be replaced with some adjustment. But the Facebook timeline, news feed, groups, pages, events, etc., are not easy to replace with a single alternative. I can't wait for the day when quitting becomes easy because alternatives are far better and easier to use.
- rdiddly 8y agoThe Times seems to be on an anti-Facebook crusade of sorts. Which is fine with me, but morality is usually the weakest & least important argument for doing anything. That's why so many people - the clergy - have to make a full-time career out of declaring it to be the most important. Quitting Facebook benefits you, selfishly and immediately; end of story.