7 ms·

Throwaway for obvious reasons. Opinions are my own. I joined in the last year. I had major issues with FB before, reflecting typical HN user stance. I joined b

Throwaway for obvious reasons. Opinions are my own. I joined in the last year. I had major issues with FB before, reflecting typical HN user stance. I joined because I was curious and their promises sounded like an amazing place to work. And it is. They treat us better than any other company in terms of autonomy and input. Everyone has a tea seat at the table. And what I’ve seen, the external perceptions don’t match the internal objectives. I hear real change from leadership, and most of the major issues are years old. Fb has invested hugely in protecting elections, possibly more than any single government. They have doubled that on integrity, etc. And realistically, I don’t think we know how to balance harm and good in the real world. I just don’t see tracking online activity as more harmful than the benefit that people get from the service. (Not so much US users, but the benefits to people in very poor countries are very real, and wouldn’t exist if the service didn’t monetize so well) In short I don’t see them as an evil entity. They’re just a large one that is easy pickings for negative press. I used to work for the US government in a health research role; this feels similar. When something is so massive and decentralized, the “bad press” events are gonna happen. I think FB, and especially Zuckerberg, have done a great job responding to these issues to try and solve them. Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes.

throwawaysow 8y ago
This argument sounds a lot like gaslighting. You can put this argument for any unethical company and it would work.
- badfrog 8y ago
  > This argument sounds a lot like gaslighting. That's just a matter of whether you think OP truly believes what they said.
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    "It's not a lie, if you believe it!" - George Costanza
    - badfrog 8y ago
      Indeed. You can be wrong without lying.
- tdhoot 8y ago
  How is this gaslighting?
- adamrezich 8y ago
  Can we please stop using "gaslighting" as shorthand for "an opinion or perspective expressed by a single user that I disagree with?" I've seen it in several comment threads here in the past few weeks and it's getting really annoying.
- fbemployee1234 8y ago
  I think you could also identify similar negative consequences from any entity the size of Facebook. I think it’s a side effect of being big, and fb is no different than any of the F1000 or just about any government on the planet. What I do see internally — executives down through rank and file acknowledge the problems and work really hard to address them. I haven’t seen the same level in introspection elsewhere, even when I worked for the DoD.
rwl 8y ago
> I just don’t see tracking online activity as more harmful than the benefit that people get from the service. (Not so much US users, but the benefits to people in very poor countries are very real, and wouldn’t exist if the service didn’t monetize so well) Can't you elaborate on this? What's the difference between people in the US and poor countries? Why does tracking help the latter group?
- 121789 8y ago
  I think he's just saying that folks in developing countries get more value of the service (developed countries have much more competition), not that they benefit from tracking more.
  - fbemployee1234 8y ago
    This. Poor countries use Facebook for really valuable actions like talking to loved ones. In the states we have alternatives and can afford a few bucks a month for a service. But in poor countries, Facebook is often a lifeline (sometimes literally, in the case of crises)
    - chromecanary 8y ago
      You hear a lot of "STOP SHOWING ME ADS ON _____. I'LL PAY FOR THIS. STOP TRACKING ME. I'D LOVE A PAID VERSION OF ______" And every single time I laugh at how much those statements reek of privilege. It's always from people who live in the biggest, richest cities of the country and are usually white+young+have steady incomes. If Facebook started offering ad-free versions, within a year it would become a website only for the SF/NY/London elite kids. Imagine if these services were paid: Facebook = $40/month. Whatsapp = $30/mo, Instagram = $30/mo. Youtube = $30/mo. Google Search = $50/mo. Google Maps = $30/mo. Sure, you're probably rich enough that you can afford a crazy amount to subscribe to every possible website. But the majority of the world cannot - and that's why ads are not just an unnecessary distraction but instead a necessary way to life on the Internet.
      - 8y ago
warp_factor 8y ago
Let me disagree on this. I think You joined Facebook, and they showed you the "Employee side" where everything is beautiful, with free food and free toys and you became convinced. Yes, they treat employees super well, nobody contradicts that. But how does it change anything related to how bad the product is (and all the bad things it does to people that use it a lot). It is easy to let the beautiful inner side of Facebook take over the product side of Facebook that everyone else is seeing from the outside.
- badfrog 8y ago
  > But how does it change anything related to how bad the product is From OP: > I hear real change from leadership > Fb has invested hugely in protecting elections, possibly more than any single government. They have doubled that on integrity, etc. > I think FB, and especially Zuckerberg, have done a great job responding to these issues to try and solve them. You might think they're misinformed or incorrect, but you can't say they didn't address product/company issues.
- basch 8y ago
  "how bad the product is" What makes facebook so much worse than email? The fact that its default sorting algorithm is based on how relevant it thinks stories are to your interests? Any spread of false information could happen basically as easily through gmail. I dont see people getting mad at gmail and outlook for allowing chain letters to keep existing.
  - warp_factor 8y ago
    The utility_function of facebook (what it maximizes for) is for your attention grab. This in itself makes the product bad. They will hack the endorphin in your brain in order to keep you hooked. the utility_function of email is utilitarian. No email server wants to keep their user hooked on their emails.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

throwawaysow 8y ago

This argument sounds a lot like gaslighting. You can put this argument for any unethical company and it would work.

badfrog 8y ago
> This argument sounds a lot like gaslighting. That's just a matter of whether you think OP truly believes what they said.
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago
  "It's not a lie, if you believe it!" - George Costanza
  - badfrog 8y ago
    Indeed. You can be wrong without lying.
tdhoot 8y ago
How is this gaslighting?
adamrezich 8y ago
Can we please stop using "gaslighting" as shorthand for "an opinion or perspective expressed by a single user that I disagree with?" I've seen it in several comment threads here in the past few weeks and it's getting really annoying.
fbemployee1234 8y ago
I think you could also identify similar negative consequences from any entity the size of Facebook. I think it’s a side effect of being big, and fb is no different than any of the F1000 or just about any government on the planet. What I do see internally — executives down through rank and file acknowledge the problems and work really hard to address them. I haven’t seen the same level in introspection elsewhere, even when I worked for the DoD.

rwl 8y ago

> I just don’t see tracking online activity as more harmful than the benefit that people get from the service. (Not so much US users, but the benefits to people in very poor countries are very real, and wouldn’t exist if the service didn’t monetize so well) Can't you elaborate on this? What's the difference between people in the US and poor countries? Why does tracking help the latter group?

121789 8y ago
I think he's just saying that folks in developing countries get more value of the service (developed countries have much more competition), not that they benefit from tracking more.
- fbemployee1234 8y ago
  This. Poor countries use Facebook for really valuable actions like talking to loved ones. In the states we have alternatives and can afford a few bucks a month for a service. But in poor countries, Facebook is often a lifeline (sometimes literally, in the case of crises)
  - chromecanary 8y ago
    You hear a lot of "STOP SHOWING ME ADS ON _____. I'LL PAY FOR THIS. STOP TRACKING ME. I'D LOVE A PAID VERSION OF ______" And every single time I laugh at how much those statements reek of privilege. It's always from people who live in the biggest, richest cities of the country and are usually white+young+have steady incomes. If Facebook started offering ad-free versions, within a year it would become a website only for the SF/NY/London elite kids. Imagine if these services were paid: Facebook = $40/month. Whatsapp = $30/mo, Instagram = $30/mo. Youtube = $30/mo. Google Search = $50/mo. Google Maps = $30/mo. Sure, you're probably rich enough that you can afford a crazy amount to subscribe to every possible website. But the majority of the world cannot - and that's why ads are not just an unnecessary distraction but instead a necessary way to life on the Internet.
    - 8y ago

warp_factor 8y ago

Let me disagree on this. I think You joined Facebook, and they showed you the "Employee side" where everything is beautiful, with free food and free toys and you became convinced. Yes, they treat employees super well, nobody contradicts that. But how does it change anything related to how bad the product is (and all the bad things it does to people that use it a lot). It is easy to let the beautiful inner side of Facebook take over the product side of Facebook that everyone else is seeing from the outside.

badfrog 8y ago
> But how does it change anything related to how bad the product is From OP: > I hear real change from leadership > Fb has invested hugely in protecting elections, possibly more than any single government. They have doubled that on integrity, etc. > I think FB, and especially Zuckerberg, have done a great job responding to these issues to try and solve them. You might think they're misinformed or incorrect, but you can't say they didn't address product/company issues.
basch 8y ago
"how bad the product is" What makes facebook so much worse than email? The fact that its default sorting algorithm is based on how relevant it thinks stories are to your interests? Any spread of false information could happen basically as easily through gmail. I dont see people getting mad at gmail and outlook for allowing chain letters to keep existing.
- warp_factor 8y ago
  The utility_function of facebook (what it maximizes for) is for your attention grab. This in itself makes the product bad. They will hack the endorphin in your brain in order to keep you hooked. the utility_function of email is utilitarian. No email server wants to keep their user hooked on their emails.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]