4 ms·

> The onus was really on them to demonstrate that trusting third parties with our communications is a reasonable thing to do. In general, I agree, but the cont

> The onus was really on them to demonstrate that trusting third parties with our communications is a reasonable thing to do. In general, I agree, but the context here is dozens of HN commenters claiming that FB is a bad actor/net negative for the world. These commenters cite lists of gripes about the company, many legitimate, some illegitimate, but get hand-wavy when someone asks about the "net" in "net negative". I'm not rejecting the conclusion, here, by the way! If the company is ultimately bad for society, this line of questioning should embolden the consensus HN opinion.

mindslight 8y ago
The metric of "net (negative)" is nonsensical on a multidimensional question, due to varying utility functions. Faceboot directly optimizes to increase time spent on their site, wasting human potential. Faceboot also provides an effortless way to check in with loved ones after a disaster, easing human suffering. Two people will look at both of these facts, value each one differently, and come up with a different "net". Furthermore, it is not appropriate to give Faceboot all the credit for either facet! People could check in with text messages, and people would be in dopamine loops even with software purely under their control. So the only thing we can really do is discuss each facet independently, in the context of first principles / morals. I personally think much of what is wrong with Faceboot is due to the conflict of interest from a third party mediating social relationships, and the inhuman scale of centralization. But the more that comes out about inherent social media narcissism, I also see that there is no silver bullet.
- drewblaisdell 8y ago
  I agree with much of what you wrote, but disagree that the question is nonsense. From a specific utilitarian perspective, "wasted human potential" only matters in so much as it impacts human suffering. If we want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, the units are still the same in both opposing points you mentioned - it is just really, really hard to measure. In practical terms, coming up with qualitative points and weighting them in a good-faith-but-ultimately-arbitrary-manner is good enough, and something that everyone does constantly. For example, I suspect the average HNer weights "wasted human potential from FB" more than "benefit of disaster reporting from FB" (which I also agree with - however "benefit of disaster reporting" almost certainly outweighs "detriment from nebulous analytics firm scandal").
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > If we want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, the units are still the same in both opposing points you mentioned - it is just really, really hard to measure. It's not hard - it's impossible. Even we fully agree on a specific metric, a situation still has to be weighed against possible alternatives and integrated on timescales longer than our lives. A very basic example of this is a company optimizing for "profits", but they're actually optimizing for short term profits at the expense of going out of business two years later. The future is unknowable in the same exact sense that every NP-hard problem is. Heuristics are the only way to tackle this. > coming up with qualitative points and weighting them in a good-faith-but-ultimately-arbitrary-manner is good enough, and something that everyone does constantly Of course, which is why I'm referring to "Faceboot" even while recognizing that people get utility out of it. I just think that focusing on arbitrary pairs of specific facets is already headed down the path of madness, which is why I stated my initial critique in terms of basic principles.
    - drewblaisdell 8y ago
      > Heuristics are the only way to tackle this. Yes. This is why every single comment of mine in this thread recommends a specific heuristic with which to tackle this exact problem.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        The heuristic is the sum of what individuals are willing to put up with or not -- not something you can calculate and then just prescribe for everybody.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> net negative How do you weight the individual criticisms, or individual benefits to achieve an objective positive/negative score? How do you weigh "installing spyware to see what companies we might buy" against "share photos with nan"? How does the Facebook "only visible to people you interact with enough" algorithm affect the previous question's balance? Without the weighting I think we've easily reached the point where the number of negative revelations is incessant and the benefits declining (thanks in part to that previously mentioned feed algorithm).
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  I think that may be the the point, to get too many people from acting on what they have enough of, to "let's talk some more first". Such discussion wasn't required of anyone before they were allowed to express support or praise, so why would it be required from anyone who reached the point of boycott or criticism, before they are granted that they have reached that point? I mean, it's fine to ask people why they think what they think of Facebook, but why refuse to accept others are moving for good reasons, maybe for better reasons than others have for not moving -- and ask them questions while letting them pass, without attempting to delegitimize them until they "explained themselves"?

mindslight 8y ago

The metric of "net (negative)" is nonsensical on a multidimensional question, due to varying utility functions. Faceboot directly optimizes to increase time spent on their site, wasting human potential. Faceboot also provides an effortless way to check in with loved ones after a disaster, easing human suffering. Two people will look at both of these facts, value each one differently, and come up with a different "net". Furthermore, it is not appropriate to give Faceboot all the credit for either facet! People could check in with text messages, and people would be in dopamine loops even with software purely under their control. So the only thing we can really do is discuss each facet independently, in the context of first principles / morals. I personally think much of what is wrong with Faceboot is due to the conflict of interest from a third party mediating social relationships, and the inhuman scale of centralization. But the more that comes out about inherent social media narcissism, I also see that there is no silver bullet.

drewblaisdell 8y ago
I agree with much of what you wrote, but disagree that the question is nonsense. From a specific utilitarian perspective, "wasted human potential" only matters in so much as it impacts human suffering. If we want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, the units are still the same in both opposing points you mentioned - it is just really, really hard to measure. In practical terms, coming up with qualitative points and weighting them in a good-faith-but-ultimately-arbitrary-manner is good enough, and something that everyone does constantly. For example, I suspect the average HNer weights "wasted human potential from FB" more than "benefit of disaster reporting from FB" (which I also agree with - however "benefit of disaster reporting" almost certainly outweighs "detriment from nebulous analytics firm scandal").
- mindslight 8y ago
  > If we want to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, the units are still the same in both opposing points you mentioned - it is just really, really hard to measure. It's not hard - it's impossible. Even we fully agree on a specific metric, a situation still has to be weighed against possible alternatives and integrated on timescales longer than our lives. A very basic example of this is a company optimizing for "profits", but they're actually optimizing for short term profits at the expense of going out of business two years later. The future is unknowable in the same exact sense that every NP-hard problem is. Heuristics are the only way to tackle this. > coming up with qualitative points and weighting them in a good-faith-but-ultimately-arbitrary-manner is good enough, and something that everyone does constantly Of course, which is why I'm referring to "Faceboot" even while recognizing that people get utility out of it. I just think that focusing on arbitrary pairs of specific facets is already headed down the path of madness, which is why I stated my initial critique in terms of basic principles.
  - drewblaisdell 8y ago
    > Heuristics are the only way to tackle this. Yes. This is why every single comment of mine in this thread recommends a specific heuristic with which to tackle this exact problem.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      The heuristic is the sum of what individuals are willing to put up with or not -- not something you can calculate and then just prescribe for everybody.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> net negative How do you weight the individual criticisms, or individual benefits to achieve an objective positive/negative score? How do you weigh "installing spyware to see what companies we might buy" against "share photos with nan"? How does the Facebook "only visible to people you interact with enough" algorithm affect the previous question's balance? Without the weighting I think we've easily reached the point where the number of negative revelations is incessant and the benefits declining (thanks in part to that previously mentioned feed algorithm).

PavlovsCat 8y ago
I think that may be the the point, to get too many people from acting on what they have enough of, to "let's talk some more first". Such discussion wasn't required of anyone before they were allowed to express support or praise, so why would it be required from anyone who reached the point of boycott or criticism, before they are granted that they have reached that point? I mean, it's fine to ask people why they think what they think of Facebook, but why refuse to accept others are moving for good reasons, maybe for better reasons than others have for not moving -- and ask them questions while letting them pass, without attempting to delegitimize them until they "explained themselves"?