23 ms·

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization.

by guy_ro 6y ago

Hey, Facebook VP of Integrity here (I work on this stuff). This WSJ story cites old research and falsely suggests we aren’t invested in fighting polarization. The reality is we didn’t adopt some of the product suggestions cited because we pursued alternatives we believed are more effective. What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundamentally changing News Feed ranking to favor content from friends and family over public content (even if this meant people would use our products less). We reduce distribution of posts that use divisive and polarizing tactics like clickbait, engagement bait, and we’ve become more restrictive when it comes to the types of Groups we recommend to people. We come to these decisions through rigorous debate where we look at all angles of how our decisions will affect people in different parts of the world - from those with millions of followers to regular people who might not otherwise have a place to be heard. There’s a baseline expectation of the amount of rigor and diligence we apply to new products and it should be expected that we’d regularly evaluate to ensure that our products are as effective as they can be. We get criticism from all sides of any decision and it motivates us to look at research, our own and external, analyze and pressure test our principles about where we do and don't draw lines on speech. We continue to do and fund research on misinformation and polarization to better understand the impact of our products; in February we announced an additional $2M in funding for independent research on this topic (e.g. https://research.fb.com/blog/2020/02/facebook-misinformation-polarization-rfp-two-million-dollar-commitment/ https://research.fb.com/blog/2020/02/facebook-misinformation...). Criticism and scrutiny are always welcome, but using cherry-picked examples to try and negatively portray our intentions is unfortunate.

karmelapple 6y ago
Thanks for the message. Does your group have a centralized place where your team’s research, recommendations, and roadmap for changes are visible to the public?
abraae 6y ago
Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential threats like climate change because a lot of people get their worldview from Facebook. Algorithms have decided that they fall on one side of the polarization divide and should receive a powerful dose of fake science and denialism ... all because clicks and engagement.
- nradov 6y ago
  10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here. How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    >Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts. If they actually pay their taxes, they all do.
    - shitgoose 6y ago
      If they actually pay their taxes, they all do. They don't.
  - alpacaillama 6y ago
    This is classic whataboutism. What does people being led to believe that fat was healthy have to do with Facebook’s deliberate inability to make their content less divisive
    - waheoo 6y ago
      The while thing is, what does what other tech companies donate to have to do with anything? Btw, some tech companies donate a fuckload to open source and other aligned initiatives. Its annoying to see this ignored for the sake of a weak argument.
    - nradov 6y ago
      You missed the point. Too many people are credulous, and lack a rigorous education in epistemology and the scientific method. This has been a problem forever and isn't something Facebook can fix.
      - alpacaillama 6y ago
101011 6y ago
Which points in particular are you disagreeing with from the article?
DevKoala 6y ago
Why are you asking third parties to conduct this research? Why isn’t this an initiative driven by an internal team? Where applications for this program advertised outside of Facebook? Is $2M realistic for this research? I know I wouldn’t be enthused considering my total compensation. Do you expect top quality researchers to apply?
- adrianN 6y ago
  To be honest, I'd be a lot more skeptical if this research weren't done by a third party.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    The platform is constantly evolving. At any point millions of individuals could be part of an A/B test that alters their experience. How can a third party navigate these conditions without corrupting their findings?
throwaway77665 6y ago
This may come off as condescending, but I'm honestly just curious. From the outside looking in, it seems as though you are paid to drink cool-aid and paint FB in a positive light. How does one get to be in your position? What are the qualifications for your job?
- guy_ro 6y ago
  Fair enough, but I also get to see first-hand how decisions are made and how rigorous debates take place, so I have more faith in the process. We've got lots to do to improve transparency of how this stuff happens, because I know people care about it. One way we started a while ago is publishing minutes to one of our meetings where decisions on content policies get made. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-minutes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-mi... -- lots more to do!
  - choppaface 6y ago
    Can you qualify what you mean by “rigorous” ? I think this is an important point of contention because Facebook is so accustomed to using data to justify decisions. Yet these ethical issues often either have no data and/or the consequences of Facebook’s actions impact users who are not on Facebook. Moreover, the data is not available to the public (despite the public generating the data) so the public can’t actually reproduce the warrant used internally at Facebook. This lack of reproducibility is why I think there’s so much friction around Facebook claiming their decisions are made with “rigor.” Thanks.
  - BubRoss 6y ago
    You didn't answer either of his questions.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      His work history is on LinkedIn. VP Integrity is essentially an executive product management role so qualifications would be along those lines. Edit: LinkedIn says he was an engineering manager, then took a series of roles culminating in a data startup that got him into Facebook in the current role.
blonobo 6y ago
Your entire reply sounds like gaslighting and enabling. Minimizing reponsibility and deflecting.
- dirtydroog 6y ago
  Enabling?
alpacaillama 6y ago
Would you care to post the same stats but updated for 2020 then? Also i see that this is statement is also copy pasted on your twitter so I have a hard time believing you actually do read this feedback and didn’t just post This comment as damage control.
- guy_ro 6y ago
  Hi! I am really here, not a bot :) If we're talking metrics, the 64% stat cited in the article turns out not to be a good way to measure impact of recommendations on an extremist group. We internally think about things like prevalence of bad recommendations. More on prevalence here - https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/measuring-prevalence/ https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/measuring-prevalence/. I don't have a metric I can share on recommendations specifically but you can see the areas we've shared it for so far here: https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforc...
  - sudoscript 6y ago
    You deny the statistic in the article. Then you use corporate speak like "we internally think about things..." Then you link to a blog post titled "Measuring Prevalence", which doesn't have a single data point with a number in it. Not to mention that it's another mess of CorpSpeak that sounds like a PR committee wrote it, not a human being. The problem is not your intentions. It's clear that you actually want to engage people, given that you're replying actively on this board, even to impolite comments. The problem is the style of communication. It sounds constructed, artificial, developed through a process, like you and a bunch of people are sitting there drafting replies and tweaking until you have something that won't come back later and bite you in the butt. The problem with that strategy is that you end up saying very little of meaning at all. So maybe to make things more concrete - is there a statistic on measuring the impact of recommendations that you do agree with that you can share?
alpacaillama 6y ago
The article also claims that some of these people whose suggestions facebook ignored quit. Is this also cherrypicked?
- guy_ro 6y ago
  Should I list the people who joined the team?
  - ppalevsky 6y ago
    Yes, please do!
    - guy_ro 6y ago
      Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.
      - CaptainZapp 6y ago
        "Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area." I didn't read the article, because paywalled. So you're implying seriously that 35'000 people are actively involved in such decisions? Really? Let me wager a guess: A Google search reveals 44'942 Facebook employees as per December 31 2019. You're implying here that 78% of all your employees are directly involved in such decisions? Here's my take. 99.998 % (and yes, the number is pulled out of thin air) of those 35000 people are lowly paid contractors sifting through the horrible crap that some of your users post. Sure, they're working on "safety and security" in the broadest sense, but are sure as shit far away from any such decisions.
aagha 6y ago
What complete and utter BS. Other than #MAGAts, there is no bigger threat to the US and our democracy than Facebook. You KNOWINGLY allow for the posting, distribution, and re-distribution of false information from sites you know to be dubious.
ppalevsky 6y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sizzle 6y ago
  Anyone want to hazard a guess at the total comp of a VP @Facebook? Curious I hope there are more people at the top with the integrity to stand up for injustice like Tim Bray. I have all the respect in the world for someone who puts their neck on the line for what they believe in. Thank you Tim @tbray https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/business/amazon-tim-bray-resigns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/business/amazon-tim-bray-...
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  Can we make this thread informative instead of a youtube comment section?
fogetti 6y ago
Hi there. Have you ever considered making the decision making open? I mean it seems you are obsessed with criticism and scrutiny. Then here is an idea for you: invite journalists from major media outlets to your decisions making. Then you can avoid these "unfortunate" cherry-pickings as you put it. Why I am saying this: it seems you sit backwards on your high horse, criticising those people who for all intents and purposes have very limited insight into the decision making. Me and my close friends are fed up with Facebook and how obviously it is trying to polarize everyone in this world. No sympathy for you on my side, and I cann assure you I speak on behalf of my friends too.
- guy_ro 6y ago
  Yep we actually do this! (invite journalists to decision-making meetings). One of our regular meetings is about the content policies, we publish the minutes here - https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-minutes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-mi... - and have also hosted journalists and outside academics from time to time.
  - doomrobo 6y ago
    It looks like everything after Dec. 11 2018 is slideshows. Is there a link to the minutes of those meetings?
  - fogetti 6y ago
    Thanks for the reply. But I am still not convinced. It seems these are watered down versions of outlines of the actual decision making. Which is different from what I am suggesting. Here is an actual example: > "• Question: How much will we communicate about this? We usually don't want people to game the Feed but this change might hit their pocketbook so my instinct is to be open about this. > • Answer: Comms is aware and we will be proactive about communicating this. Inside Feed is one channel we can use to do this. The only way this can happen at the domain level is with full transparency and product is aware we can't do this unless we have that." So the commitee passed the buck and all the transparency is gone. Also there are no names or responsible persons assigned. And by the way, the words "feed", "news feed" or "ranking" appears only once throughout the span of 4 months. I very much doubt there were no decisions in any form throughout those 4 months regarding the news feed. So overall this looks to me like pixie dust rather than a true representation or involvement in decision making.
ponker 6y ago
Potentially useful context: the parent here was the Co-Founder and CEO of Onavo which he sold to Facebook for $120 million. If the name "Onavo" doesn't trigger any bells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo . It was ostensibly a VPN but tracked its users' behavior and Facebook used the data from Onavo to judge how much traffic various startups had when deciding whether to acquire them. I think that the fact that the founder/CEO of Onavo is now Facebook's VP of Integrity is entirely consistent with everything else we've read about Facebook over the years.
- mrgill 6y ago
  And now calls himself VP of Integrity. Amazing..
  - hellcow 6y ago
    > The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. -- 1984 His title VP of Integrity is not accidental; it can't be.
dmead 6y ago
I'm going to eat you.
corporatehobo 6y ago
The fact that FB has not banned political ads is pretty shocking and absolutely related to this topic. Twitter managed to do it, but FB continues to allow political parties to spread misinformation via the algorithm, and FB profits from it. So essentially VP of Integrity, your salary is paid for in part by the spread of misinformation. Until you at least ban political ads your integrity is non-existent.
- Zandikar 6y ago
  Facebook having a "VP of Integrity" is laughable. They must have workshopped it and discovered "Minister of Truth" was a bit too on the nose.
  - srj 6y ago
    Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?
    - gisely 6y ago
      But of course! Every company should have a VP of Integrity, especially Facebook. Creating the impression of trustworthiness while profiting from lies is important at any company. At Facebook it’s the core business.
    - tmalsburg2 6y ago
      Integrity should be woven into the fabric of a company's culture. It can't possibly be a role. Making it a role looks like window-dressing and effectively an empty gesture.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      Being receptive and responsive to critics is a function of marketing. And that's what this is -- marketing. Further more just because the role exists doesn't mean it matters. My Org has all sorts of diversity and sustainability managers, and their relevance ends the moment business decisions come into play.
aestetix 6y ago
I have a few questions about this but I would prefer to ask them privately. Is there a non-twitter way to contact you, such as an email address? My email address is in my hn bio if you don't want to make that public :)
monadic2 6y ago
> We reduce distribution of posts that use divisive and polarizing tactics like clickbait, engagement bait, and we’ve become more restrictive when it comes to the types of Groups we recommend to people. This seems inherently a political evaluation. What are the criteria and is this driven manually automatically?
5ociety 6y ago
Dear idiot, let me help you. Stop trying to control people. Just stop. You are the anti-christ. Stop trying to social engineer opinions. Stop censorship. Just let people say what they have to say.
- dlivingston 6y ago
  Your comment appears to be in violation of the HN guidelines and is at risk for being removed [0]. Please refrain from personal attacks. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - 5ociety 6y ago
    how is that comment being removed any different from the hive mind downvoting and flagging all of my other comments? i really truly am sorry that you adults on hackernews think you need to censor every little thing.
mola 6y ago
Well, when your management has such a record regarding their own integrity why on earth would you expect us "dumb fucks", as Zukerberg put it, to trust you? Facebook has lied again and again, took any shady approach to get data, mishandle that data, practically endorsed a genocide. What integrity are you talking about? You maybe serious about your job, but you work for people that proved they have no moral compass. I'd quit if I were you and actually believe in what you try to accomplish. Edit: just realized you are the founder of onavo, a spyware bought by facebook. Were you also heading project atlas? Were you responsible for inviting teens to install spyware so you can collect all their data? The mere fact YOU are chosen as VP of integrity just says it all. When the head of integrity is a spyware peddler... Well.... Yeah, I guess it's a cynical move I should've expected of Facebook.
alex_young 6y ago
Why does Facebook need a VP of Integrity? Isn’t that the CEO’s job?
- fogetti 6y ago
  Maybe that's how Facebook builds their organization: VP of Integrity, VP of Honesty, VP of Sincerity. So that Zuckerberg doesn't have to take on any of those roles.
  - KSteffensen 6y ago
    It's like the '1984' ministries....
- TheHypnotist 6y ago
  Yes - but in this case the CEO has none so he needs to outsource his integrity to someone else, and when you are a vacuum of integrity, everyone else looks like a saint. Therefore, top comment.
zxcb1 6y ago
“We come to these decisions through rigorous debate where we look at all angles of how our decisions will affect people in different parts of the world” If you had any integrity, you would delegate this governance back to the captured provinces.
sub7 6y ago
> Facebook VP of Integrity hahahhahahhahahhahahah
rmrfstar 6y ago
> Criticism and scrutiny are always welcome Genuine question here. We have entered an era in which non-state actors like Facebook have power that was once the exclusive domain of governments [1]. Facebook understands this, and justifiably views itself as a quasi-government [2]. I would really like to understand Facebook’s theory of governance. If I want to understand my own government, I can read the Federalist papers. These documents articulate an understanding of history and a positive view of the appropriate role of government in society. I can use these documents to help myself evaluate a particular government action in light of the purpose of government and the risks inherent in concentrated power. Has Facebook published something like this? I struggle to understand Facebook’s internal view of it’s role in society and its concept of what “doing the right thing” means. Without some clear statement of governing principles, people will naturally gravitate to the view that Facebook is a cynical and sometimes petty [3] profit maximizer. Without some statement of purpose and principles, it is hard to level criticism in a way that Facebook will find helpful or actionable. We are left to speculate about Facebook's intentions, instead of arguing that a certain outcome is inconsistent with its stated purpose. [1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/blurred-lines-between-state-and-non-state-actors https://www.cfr.org/blog/blurred-lines-between-state-and-non... [2] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerber... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/facebooks-security-team-tracks-posts-location-for-bolo-threat-list.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/facebooks-security-team-trac...
- cheschire 6y ago
  So tethics then? https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/silicon-valley-recap-season-6-episode-5-tethics.html https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/silicon-valley-recap-season-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
FemmeAndroid 6y ago
Meta question. How is this post from a user created 6 hours ago, with 66 Karma at the top of this comment section? This is particularly interesting since just this week, TripleByte’s CEO’s top level comments were buried. Is there some kind of change or is this really the naturally occurring top comment?
- anewdirection 6y ago
  HN has many employees of faang companies as users. Some paid to be here. You can work the rest out yourself.
gadders 6y ago
Why does "polarisation" always mean clamping down on right-wing people and content? Can you give examples of left-wing content you have removed?
tripzilch 6y ago
> What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundamentally changing News Feed ranking to favor content from friends and family over public content (even if this meant people would use our products less). Emphasis added. What is that supposed to mean? Would you like a sticker for doing the right thing?
titzer 6y ago
Respectfully, to a top brass executive at Facebook: I respect the hard work and innovation that has gone into building Facebook. It's allowed billions of people to connect worldwide in ways that were never possible before. It is truly a billion dollar platform. The problem is that your entire executive leadership believes it is a five hundred billion dollar platform. They have to, because the investors demand it. This is the source of all your failings.
binxbolling 6y ago
If you're not being given the benefit of the doubt, it's because your employer has 16 years of lying about this and related issues. Zuck long ago torched whatever shred of trust ever existed, so no, we are not going to be impressed by an extra 0.003% of annual revenue thrown to problems you've created.
- TheHypnotist 6y ago
  On top of that - it seems their efforts to prioritize friends and family may not take into consideration this is where the divisiveness seems to begin? How many of us have friends and family that share news articles, worldview opinions, and memes that fit into divisiveness, fake news, and/or borderline racism. You can reshuffle the deck but the same cards are still inside.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  Can we make this thread informative instead of a youtube comment section?
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
Thanks for chiming in here! Honestly the response to your comment reminds me of the youtube comment section. I'm not sure why people aren't capable of civil discourse, would have expected better from HN.
cityzen 6y ago
Your MO over the years seems to be "we're working on it" from your frontline interview in 2018 regarding Myanmar to a business insider article from last year regarding the New Zealand shooting. $2M for independent research. haha, that's really generous of Facebook. You all probably made that in a days worth of misleading political ads you've sold. One question I have for you mr VP of INTEGRITY... I haven't used FB in over 8 years but I would like the full set of every data point that you have on me, my wife and my kids. Where can I get that? And if I can't, please explain to me why. I guess you've been drinking so much moneysaurus rex kool aid that you seem to not understand that people just don't believe anything you all say anymore. Your boss can't even give straight answers in front of the government. Maybe you all should change your tagline to: Facebook, we're working on it. Business Insider article: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-removes-mention-of-new-vp-of-integrity-role-2019-3?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-removes-mention-of-... Frontline Interview: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/guy-rosen/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/guy-rosen/
cityzen 6y ago
You know, reading up on your whole Onavo thing... you're just shady AF. I can't say I'm surprised but just stop with this gaslighting BS.
theFeller00 6y ago
Not much to add other than I absolutely hate your company.
cityzen 6y ago
Facebook says Trump's false claims about mail-in ballots don't break its rules. You guys are a bunch of clowns.
NKato 6y ago
guy_ro, no. After seeing Zuckerberg on the news tonight, I don't believe you at all. Y'all "fact-checked" the Lincoln Project and barred them from placing ads on Facebook because they were critical of Trump. Meanwhile, the Zuck says he'll let anything and everything go with absolutely no fact-checking whatsoever. Hypocrisy, thy name is Fuckerberg. Your social media platform is quite literally driving the wedge into America, and you don't care. Your bottom line is PROFIT. That's it. You don't care about anything else as long as you avoid liability. That's your job as VP of Integrity -- keeping Facebook looking "good" while it foments distrust between its users. If you were SERIOUS about integrity, you would have started cracking down on toxic groups and ideologies a long time ago. You didn't.
throwawaymanbot 6y ago
You guys lie so much I cant believe this. I trust reporters more. You also took down an Ad critical of Trump, but leave up his calls to violence. "Credibility" eh.

by guy_ro 6y ago

karmelapple 6y ago

Thanks for the message. Does your group have a centralized place where your team’s research, recommendations, and roadmap for changes are visible to the public?

abraae 6y ago

Just to cherry-pick from your reply here, if $2M is the biggest ticket item you have to show for independent research on this topic - then you're woefully short given Facebook's revenues and size. 10 short years ago, nobody could have imagined that huge swathes of the population could have been swayed to accept non-scientific statements as fact because of social media. Now we're struggling to deal with existential threats like climate change because a lot of people get their worldview from Facebook. Algorithms have decided that they fall on one side of the polarization divide and should receive a powerful dose of fake science and denialism ... all because clicks and engagement.

nradov 6y ago
10 short years ago, huge swaths of the population were swayed to accept non-scientific statements like eating fat and cholesterol were unhealthy. I don't think Facebook is the problem here. How much exactly do you think Facebook ought to donate to independent researchers? Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  >Most tech companies donate ~0$ to such efforts. If they actually pay their taxes, they all do.
  - shitgoose 6y ago
    If they actually pay their taxes, they all do. They don't.
- alpacaillama 6y ago
  This is classic whataboutism. What does people being led to believe that fat was healthy have to do with Facebook’s deliberate inability to make their content less divisive
  - waheoo 6y ago
    The while thing is, what does what other tech companies donate to have to do with anything? Btw, some tech companies donate a fuckload to open source and other aligned initiatives. Its annoying to see this ignored for the sake of a weak argument.
  - nradov 6y ago
    You missed the point. Too many people are credulous, and lack a rigorous education in epistemology and the scientific method. This has been a problem forever and isn't something Facebook can fix.
    - alpacaillama 6y ago

101011 6y ago

Which points in particular are you disagreeing with from the article?

DevKoala 6y ago

Why are you asking third parties to conduct this research? Why isn’t this an initiative driven by an internal team? Where applications for this program advertised outside of Facebook? Is $2M realistic for this research? I know I wouldn’t be enthused considering my total compensation. Do you expect top quality researchers to apply?

adrianN 6y ago
To be honest, I'd be a lot more skeptical if this research weren't done by a third party.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  The platform is constantly evolving. At any point millions of individuals could be part of an A/B test that alters their experience. How can a third party navigate these conditions without corrupting their findings?

throwaway77665 6y ago

This may come off as condescending, but I'm honestly just curious. From the outside looking in, it seems as though you are paid to drink cool-aid and paint FB in a positive light. How does one get to be in your position? What are the qualifications for your job?

guy_ro 6y ago
Fair enough, but I also get to see first-hand how decisions are made and how rigorous debates take place, so I have more faith in the process. We've got lots to do to improve transparency of how this stuff happens, because I know people care about it. One way we started a while ago is publishing minutes to one of our meetings where decisions on content policies get made. https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-minutes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-mi... -- lots more to do!
- choppaface 6y ago
  Can you qualify what you mean by “rigorous” ? I think this is an important point of contention because Facebook is so accustomed to using data to justify decisions. Yet these ethical issues often either have no data and/or the consequences of Facebook’s actions impact users who are not on Facebook. Moreover, the data is not available to the public (despite the public generating the data) so the public can’t actually reproduce the warrant used internally at Facebook. This lack of reproducibility is why I think there’s so much friction around Facebook claiming their decisions are made with “rigor.” Thanks.
- BubRoss 6y ago
  You didn't answer either of his questions.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    His work history is on LinkedIn. VP Integrity is essentially an executive product management role so qualifications would be along those lines. Edit: LinkedIn says he was an engineering manager, then took a series of roles culminating in a data startup that got him into Facebook in the current role.

blonobo 6y ago

Your entire reply sounds like gaslighting and enabling. Minimizing reponsibility and deflecting.

dirtydroog 6y ago
Enabling?

alpacaillama 6y ago

Would you care to post the same stats but updated for 2020 then? Also i see that this is statement is also copy pasted on your twitter so I have a hard time believing you actually do read this feedback and didn’t just post This comment as damage control.

guy_ro 6y ago
Hi! I am really here, not a bot :) If we're talking metrics, the 64% stat cited in the article turns out not to be a good way to measure impact of recommendations on an extremist group. We internally think about things like prevalence of bad recommendations. More on prevalence here - https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/measuring-prevalence/ https://about.fb.com/news/2019/05/measuring-prevalence/. I don't have a metric I can share on recommendations specifically but you can see the areas we've shared it for so far here: https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforc...
- sudoscript 6y ago
  You deny the statistic in the article. Then you use corporate speak like "we internally think about things..." Then you link to a blog post titled "Measuring Prevalence", which doesn't have a single data point with a number in it. Not to mention that it's another mess of CorpSpeak that sounds like a PR committee wrote it, not a human being. The problem is not your intentions. It's clear that you actually want to engage people, given that you're replying actively on this board, even to impolite comments. The problem is the style of communication. It sounds constructed, artificial, developed through a process, like you and a bunch of people are sitting there drafting replies and tweaking until you have something that won't come back later and bite you in the butt. The problem with that strategy is that you end up saying very little of meaning at all. So maybe to make things more concrete - is there a statistic on measuring the impact of recommendations that you do agree with that you can share?

alpacaillama 6y ago

The article also claims that some of these people whose suggestions facebook ignored quit. Is this also cherrypicked?

guy_ro 6y ago
Should I list the people who joined the team?
- ppalevsky 6y ago
  Yes, please do!
  - guy_ro 6y ago
    Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area.
    - CaptainZapp 6y ago
      "Might be a long list. We've got >35,000 people working on safety and security. I expected some challenges recruiting people with all the bad press we got over the last few years, but instead I've seen that talented people eager for a really hard challenge are even more excited to join and wok on this area." I didn't read the article, because paywalled. So you're implying seriously that 35'000 people are actively involved in such decisions? Really? Let me wager a guess: A Google search reveals 44'942 Facebook employees as per December 31 2019. You're implying here that 78% of all your employees are directly involved in such decisions? Here's my take. 99.998 % (and yes, the number is pulled out of thin air) of those 35000 people are lowly paid contractors sifting through the horrible crap that some of your users post. Sure, they're working on "safety and security" in the broadest sense, but are sure as shit far away from any such decisions.

aagha 6y ago

What complete and utter BS. Other than #MAGAts, there is no bigger threat to the US and our democracy than Facebook. You KNOWINGLY allow for the posting, distribution, and re-distribution of false information from sites you know to be dubious.

ppalevsky 6y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sizzle 6y ago
Anyone want to hazard a guess at the total comp of a VP @Facebook? Curious I hope there are more people at the top with the integrity to stand up for injustice like Tim Bray. I have all the respect in the world for someone who puts their neck on the line for what they believe in. Thank you Tim @tbray https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/business/amazon-tim-bray-resigns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/business/amazon-tim-bray-...
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
Can we make this thread informative instead of a youtube comment section?

fogetti 6y ago

Hi there. Have you ever considered making the decision making open? I mean it seems you are obsessed with criticism and scrutiny. Then here is an idea for you: invite journalists from major media outlets to your decisions making. Then you can avoid these "unfortunate" cherry-pickings as you put it. Why I am saying this: it seems you sit backwards on your high horse, criticising those people who for all intents and purposes have very limited insight into the decision making. Me and my close friends are fed up with Facebook and how obviously it is trying to polarize everyone in this world. No sympathy for you on my side, and I cann assure you I speak on behalf of my friends too.

guy_ro 6y ago
Yep we actually do this! (invite journalists to decision-making meetings). One of our regular meetings is about the content policies, we publish the minutes here - https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-minutes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/content-standards-forum-mi... - and have also hosted journalists and outside academics from time to time.
- doomrobo 6y ago
  It looks like everything after Dec. 11 2018 is slideshows. Is there a link to the minutes of those meetings?
- fogetti 6y ago
  Thanks for the reply. But I am still not convinced. It seems these are watered down versions of outlines of the actual decision making. Which is different from what I am suggesting. Here is an actual example: > "• Question: How much will we communicate about this? We usually don't want people to game the Feed but this change might hit their pocketbook so my instinct is to be open about this. > • Answer: Comms is aware and we will be proactive about communicating this. Inside Feed is one channel we can use to do this. The only way this can happen at the domain level is with full transparency and product is aware we can't do this unless we have that." So the commitee passed the buck and all the transparency is gone. Also there are no names or responsible persons assigned. And by the way, the words "feed", "news feed" or "ranking" appears only once throughout the span of 4 months. I very much doubt there were no decisions in any form throughout those 4 months regarding the news feed. So overall this looks to me like pixie dust rather than a true representation or involvement in decision making.

ponker 6y ago

Potentially useful context: the parent here was the Co-Founder and CEO of Onavo which he sold to Facebook for $120 million. If the name "Onavo" doesn't trigger any bells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo . It was ostensibly a VPN but tracked its users' behavior and Facebook used the data from Onavo to judge how much traffic various startups had when deciding whether to acquire them. I think that the fact that the founder/CEO of Onavo is now Facebook's VP of Integrity is entirely consistent with everything else we've read about Facebook over the years.

mrgill 6y ago
And now calls himself VP of Integrity. Amazing..
- hellcow 6y ago
  > The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. -- 1984 His title VP of Integrity is not accidental; it can't be.

dmead 6y ago

I'm going to eat you.

corporatehobo 6y ago

The fact that FB has not banned political ads is pretty shocking and absolutely related to this topic. Twitter managed to do it, but FB continues to allow political parties to spread misinformation via the algorithm, and FB profits from it. So essentially VP of Integrity, your salary is paid for in part by the spread of misinformation. Until you at least ban political ads your integrity is non-existent.

Zandikar 6y ago
Facebook having a "VP of Integrity" is laughable. They must have workshopped it and discovered "Minister of Truth" was a bit too on the nose.
- srj 6y ago
  Why is that laughable? If the company wants to be receptive to its critics isn't it reasonable for them to create such a role?
  - gisely 6y ago
    But of course! Every company should have a VP of Integrity, especially Facebook. Creating the impression of trustworthiness while profiting from lies is important at any company. At Facebook it’s the core business.
  - tmalsburg2 6y ago
    Integrity should be woven into the fabric of a company's culture. It can't possibly be a role. Making it a role looks like window-dressing and effectively an empty gesture.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Being receptive and responsive to critics is a function of marketing. And that's what this is -- marketing. Further more just because the role exists doesn't mean it matters. My Org has all sorts of diversity and sustainability managers, and their relevance ends the moment business decisions come into play.

aestetix 6y ago

I have a few questions about this but I would prefer to ask them privately. Is there a non-twitter way to contact you, such as an email address? My email address is in my hn bio if you don't want to make that public :)

monadic2 6y ago

> We reduce distribution of posts that use divisive and polarizing tactics like clickbait, engagement bait, and we’ve become more restrictive when it comes to the types of Groups we recommend to people. This seems inherently a political evaluation. What are the criteria and is this driven manually automatically?

5ociety 6y ago

Dear idiot, let me help you. Stop trying to control people. Just stop. You are the anti-christ. Stop trying to social engineer opinions. Stop censorship. Just let people say what they have to say.

dlivingston 6y ago
Your comment appears to be in violation of the HN guidelines and is at risk for being removed [0]. Please refrain from personal attacks. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 5ociety 6y ago
  how is that comment being removed any different from the hive mind downvoting and flagging all of my other comments? i really truly am sorry that you adults on hackernews think you need to censor every little thing.

mola 6y ago

Well, when your management has such a record regarding their own integrity why on earth would you expect us "dumb fucks", as Zukerberg put it, to trust you? Facebook has lied again and again, took any shady approach to get data, mishandle that data, practically endorsed a genocide. What integrity are you talking about? You maybe serious about your job, but you work for people that proved they have no moral compass. I'd quit if I were you and actually believe in what you try to accomplish. Edit: just realized you are the founder of onavo, a spyware bought by facebook. Were you also heading project atlas? Were you responsible for inviting teens to install spyware so you can collect all their data? The mere fact YOU are chosen as VP of integrity just says it all. When the head of integrity is a spyware peddler... Well.... Yeah, I guess it's a cynical move I should've expected of Facebook.

alex_young 6y ago

Why does Facebook need a VP of Integrity? Isn’t that the CEO’s job?

fogetti 6y ago
Maybe that's how Facebook builds their organization: VP of Integrity, VP of Honesty, VP of Sincerity. So that Zuckerberg doesn't have to take on any of those roles.
- KSteffensen 6y ago
  It's like the '1984' ministries....
TheHypnotist 6y ago
Yes - but in this case the CEO has none so he needs to outsource his integrity to someone else, and when you are a vacuum of integrity, everyone else looks like a saint. Therefore, top comment.

zxcb1 6y ago

“We come to these decisions through rigorous debate where we look at all angles of how our decisions will affect people in different parts of the world” If you had any integrity, you would delegate this governance back to the captured provinces.

sub7 6y ago

> Facebook VP of Integrity hahahhahahhahahhahahah

rmrfstar 6y ago

> Criticism and scrutiny are always welcome Genuine question here. We have entered an era in which non-state actors like Facebook have power that was once the exclusive domain of governments [1]. Facebook understands this, and justifiably views itself as a quasi-government [2]. I would really like to understand Facebook’s theory of governance. If I want to understand my own government, I can read the Federalist papers. These documents articulate an understanding of history and a positive view of the appropriate role of government in society. I can use these documents to help myself evaluate a particular government action in light of the purpose of government and the risks inherent in concentrated power. Has Facebook published something like this? I struggle to understand Facebook’s internal view of it’s role in society and its concept of what “doing the right thing” means. Without some clear statement of governing principles, people will naturally gravitate to the view that Facebook is a cynical and sometimes petty [3] profit maximizer. Without some statement of purpose and principles, it is hard to level criticism in a way that Facebook will find helpful or actionable. We are left to speculate about Facebook's intentions, instead of arguing that a certain outcome is inconsistent with its stated purpose. [1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/blurred-lines-between-state-and-non-state-actors https://www.cfr.org/blog/blurred-lines-between-state-and-non... [2] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerber... [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/facebooks-security-team-tracks-posts-location-for-bolo-threat-list.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/facebooks-security-team-trac...

cheschire 6y ago
So tethics then? https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/silicon-valley-recap-season-6-episode-5-tethics.html https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/silicon-valley-recap-season-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

FemmeAndroid 6y ago

Meta question. How is this post from a user created 6 hours ago, with 66 Karma at the top of this comment section? This is particularly interesting since just this week, TripleByte’s CEO’s top level comments were buried. Is there some kind of change or is this really the naturally occurring top comment?

anewdirection 6y ago
HN has many employees of faang companies as users. Some paid to be here. You can work the rest out yourself.

gadders 6y ago

Why does "polarisation" always mean clamping down on right-wing people and content? Can you give examples of left-wing content you have removed?

tripzilch 6y ago

> What’s undeniable is we’ve made significant changes to the way FB works to improve the integrity of our products, such as fundamentally changing News Feed ranking to favor content from friends and family over public content (even if this meant people would use our products less). Emphasis added. What is that supposed to mean? Would you like a sticker for doing the right thing?

titzer 6y ago

Respectfully, to a top brass executive at Facebook: I respect the hard work and innovation that has gone into building Facebook. It's allowed billions of people to connect worldwide in ways that were never possible before. It is truly a billion dollar platform. The problem is that your entire executive leadership believes it is a five hundred billion dollar platform. They have to, because the investors demand it. This is the source of all your failings.

binxbolling 6y ago

If you're not being given the benefit of the doubt, it's because your employer has 16 years of lying about this and related issues. Zuck long ago torched whatever shred of trust ever existed, so no, we are not going to be impressed by an extra 0.003% of annual revenue thrown to problems you've created.

TheHypnotist 6y ago
On top of that - it seems their efforts to prioritize friends and family may not take into consideration this is where the divisiveness seems to begin? How many of us have friends and family that share news articles, worldview opinions, and memes that fit into divisiveness, fake news, and/or borderline racism. You can reshuffle the deck but the same cards are still inside.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
Can we make this thread informative instead of a youtube comment section?

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

Thanks for chiming in here! Honestly the response to your comment reminds me of the youtube comment section. I'm not sure why people aren't capable of civil discourse, would have expected better from HN.

cityzen 6y ago

Your MO over the years seems to be "we're working on it" from your frontline interview in 2018 regarding Myanmar to a business insider article from last year regarding the New Zealand shooting. $2M for independent research. haha, that's really generous of Facebook. You all probably made that in a days worth of misleading political ads you've sold. One question I have for you mr VP of INTEGRITY... I haven't used FB in over 8 years but I would like the full set of every data point that you have on me, my wife and my kids. Where can I get that? And if I can't, please explain to me why. I guess you've been drinking so much moneysaurus rex kool aid that you seem to not understand that people just don't believe anything you all say anymore. Your boss can't even give straight answers in front of the government. Maybe you all should change your tagline to: Facebook, we're working on it. Business Insider article: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-removes-mention-of-new-vp-of-integrity-role-2019-3?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-removes-mention-of-... Frontline Interview: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/guy-rosen/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/guy-rosen/

cityzen 6y ago

You know, reading up on your whole Onavo thing... you're just shady AF. I can't say I'm surprised but just stop with this gaslighting BS.

theFeller00 6y ago

Not much to add other than I absolutely hate your company.

cityzen 6y ago

Facebook says Trump's false claims about mail-in ballots don't break its rules. You guys are a bunch of clowns.

NKato 6y ago

guy_ro, no. After seeing Zuckerberg on the news tonight, I don't believe you at all. Y'all "fact-checked" the Lincoln Project and barred them from placing ads on Facebook because they were critical of Trump. Meanwhile, the Zuck says he'll let anything and everything go with absolutely no fact-checking whatsoever. Hypocrisy, thy name is Fuckerberg. Your social media platform is quite literally driving the wedge into America, and you don't care. Your bottom line is PROFIT. That's it. You don't care about anything else as long as you avoid liability. That's your job as VP of Integrity -- keeping Facebook looking "good" while it foments distrust between its users. If you were SERIOUS about integrity, you would have started cracking down on toxic groups and ideologies a long time ago. You didn't.

throwawaymanbot 6y ago

You guys lie so much I cant believe this. I trust reporters more. You also took down an Ad critical of Trump, but leave up his calls to violence. "Credibility" eh.