10 ms·

Zuckerberg: I just shared the following note with our employees

83 points by tech-historian 6y ago

Avicebron 6y ago
My grain of salt meter just kicked in, here's hoping.
blaufast 6y ago
This contains much too little discussion of the feed algorithms.
circlingthesun 6y ago
Lots of ideas, few commitments. I guess this is positive.
coliveira 6y ago
Nothing is really being announced. He said they will discuss a few things but what will come out of these discussions is not guaranteed. Great way to say you're doing something without doing anything.
- cryptoz 6y ago
  The most-used verb in the numbered list is 'review'. I hope some action comes of this, but, I dunno, it's Facebook.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    I think you have your answer.
    - bg4 6y ago
      I think it's just about time for another Zuckerburg apology tour.
      - kjs3 6y ago
        I keep waiting for him to him to say "We have our Top People on it...Top People". I see him saying it with a monocle and white longhaired cat in his lap.
  - jonstewart 6y ago
    I noticed that, too. Also: “going to”
- tamaharbor 6y ago
  Kind of like naming a street “Martin Luther King Jr Blvd”.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Remember when Facebook made a few blog posts about how they were going to investigate ways to reduce fake news?
enkid 6y ago
A whole lot of review of policy and very little clear commitment to action.
Texasian 6y ago
oh good, they’re reviewing their policies. Worth just about as much as an internal investigation at a police department.
iandanforth 6y ago
You can unilaterally make critical decisions that favor conservative supporters, but to make common sense decisions that protect democracy you need to set up review boards? If you still participate in this pestilential quagmire of a social network, delete your account today.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  As a non-user of Facebook (and a non-American), I'm curious to hear what kind of critical decisions favored conservative supporters? It seems like giving any voice to conservatives is considered a PR suicide right now. I'd be surprised if FB did that. (whether this is only within the tech world or a broader point of view in America will soon be discovered come elections time)
  - hobs 6y ago
    You haven't been paying much attention then https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/media/facebook-conservative-leaders-meeting/ https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/media/facebook-conservative... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-holding-private-dinners-with-conservatives-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-holding-priv... tl;dr conservatives bitched that social media has a liberal bias and social media moguls started listening. Same thing with twitter.
  - _jal 6y ago
    Here is one recent article on the topic, but google around FB has been hiring Republican operatives to try to quell the abuse, among other things. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-... As a US American and non-FB user, I can say it is fairly obvious in the way Republican politicians attack them, and how they respond. There's a strategy Republicans use with the press, and it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't obvious to those who haven't seen it play out before.
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    They don't do as much censorship of conservatives as liberal censors would like.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
how this guy has any credibility after Myanmar is beyond me
throw7 6y ago
As someone who doesn't use facebook at all, this reads as so hilarious. Zuck knows, in this "difficult moment", his internal employee memo would leak, so he makes it public outside the walled garden. Hey Mark, let us know when you have something concrete to say to us peons.
sdan 6y ago
He said that instead of flagging, they’ll take it down entirely. Guess that’s a step forward.
Kiro 6y ago
I'm surprised that the general sentiment on HN right now seems to be that Facebook should act gatekeepers, something that traditionally has been one of the major fears.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
  - belorn 6y ago
    I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encourage it when it is the right kind of violence against the right target.
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      Yeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
      - belorn 6y ago
        We can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime. US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).
Barrin92 6y ago
almost every paragraph in that post starts with "we will" or "we have". I'm sure Mark actually meant to say "I will" given that he more or less has unilateral control over the entire community of 2.5 billion people. The world's largest autocracy if you will. Wild propopsal, if the community and in this case the voices of African-American members matter so much, why not give up some of that decision making power
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Kapura 6y ago
He is clearly viewing this as another technical problem to solve. He's a highly technical person; this follows. But the issues he's being confronted with aren't technical issues of permissions and algorithm tuning; they're societal problems of power dynamics and information manipulation. These are human traits. They aren't problems that are "solved." They're issues that you have to take a stance on. Do you believe in letting people lie on your platform? What about advertisers? What if the advertiser is a political party? Further, this feels like it's worth precisely nothing, given what he says right up top: >I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them. Zuck has shown himself unwilling to accept the responsibility of controlling his platform. He is failing every user and employee of Facebook.
- _jal 6y ago
  > He is clearly viewing this as another technical problem to solve I think you misspelled PR. Facebook has repeatedly followed variants of this script. Do what Zuckerberg and Sandberg want, and if it blows up, find a way to finesse it or at least block and tackle until humanity is distracted by the next outrage. They lie, distract and keep doing whatever they want.
  - ikeyany 6y ago
    You mean how after the Cambridge Analytica scandal when he testified in front of Congress? And how literally nothing came from that?
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >> He's a highly technical person; this follows. Is Zuckerberg even that technical? I’m aware he worked on the site originally, but never got the impression that he was highly talented (compared to, say, Google’s founders).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aerovistae 6y ago
This reddit comment was addressed to the CEO of reddit, but it feels just as pertinent for Facebook and mark Zuckerberg. https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/remember_the_human_an_update_on_our_commitments/fsw964e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/remember_th... There's nothing in this announcement, it's toothless. "We'll think about it! We'll try to come up with something!" The man is useless. ------ This other, short comment from the same thread encapsulates it well, too: https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/-/fstgtta https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/-/fstgtta
boplicity 6y ago
> I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform. Why? Because it is the most engaging. This is part of the intentional design of Facebook, and is the fundamental reason there are so many problematic things happening on the platform. Mark's "thoughts" on the topic do nothing to address this in any way. In other words, the plan is "business as usual."
- asdf333 6y ago
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
  - artsyca 6y ago
    We all act like we're above the false corporacy with our casual ways and toxic pecadilloes but it's actually a signal that we're willing to be even more ignorant than the average bloke.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  The vast majority of FB users use it for staying in touch with friends and family. The cynical framing we encounter on HN isn't actually representative of the experience of most FB users.
  - OpieCunningham 6y ago
    Have you met my friends and family? Oy vey.
  - goatherders 6y ago
    I disagree completely.
  - boplicity 6y ago
    That gets to the heart of the problem, actually. People use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, yet Facebook still systematically pushes inflammatory content on them, despite that not being the "reason" people are there. And, eventually, it gets a surprisingly high percentage of people to respond to that inflammatory content, thus furthering the cycle.
trca 6y ago
Could someone copy / paste the text here for those of us who have blocked *.facebook.com domains in our /etc/hosts file?
- a-wu 6y ago
  I just shared the following note with our employees, and I want to share it with all of you as well. --- As we continue to process this difficult moment, I want to acknowledge the real pain expressed by members of our community. I also want to acknowledge that the decision I made last week has left many of you angry, disappointed and hurt. So I am especially grateful that, despite your heartfelt disagreement, you remain focused on taking positive steps to move forward. That can't be easy, so I just want to say I hear you and I'm grateful. I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, and I'm committed to making sure our work pulls in this direction. To all of you who have already worked tirelessly on ideas to improve, I thank you. You're making a difference, and together we'll make a difference. And while we will continue to stand for giving everyone a voice and erring on the side of free expression in these difficult decisions -- even when it's speech we strongly and viscerally disagree with -- I'm committed to making sure we also fight for voter engagement and racial justice too. Many of you have asked what concrete steps we can start working on to improve our products and policies. I want to share more about the seven areas I discussed at Q&A that we're focusing on initially. Based on feedback from employees, civil rights experts and subject matter experts internally, we're exploring the following areas, which fit into three categories: ideas related to specific policies, ideas related to decision-making, and proactive initiatives to advance racial justice and voter engagement. I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them. Ideas related to specific policies: 1. We're going to review our policies allowing discussion and threats of state use of force to see if there are any amendments we should adopt. There are two specific situations under this policy that we're going to review. The first is around instances of excessive use of police or state force. Given the sensitive history in the US, this deserves special consideration. The second case is around when a country has ongoing civil unrest or violent conflicts. We already have precedents for imposing greater restrictions during emergencies and when countries are in ongoing states of conflict, so there may be additional policies or integrity measures to consider around discussion or threats of state use of force when a country is in this state. 2. We're going to review our policies around voter suppression to make sure we're taking into account the realities of voting in the midst of a pandemic. I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. But there's a good chance that there will be unprecedented fear and confusion around going to the polls in November, and some will likely try to capitalize on that confusion. For example, as politicians debate what the vote-by-mail policies should be in different states, what should be the line between a legitimate debate about the voting policies and attempts to confuse or suppress individuals about how, when or where to vote? If a newspaper publishes articles claiming that going to polls will be dangerous given Covid, how should we determine whether that is health information or voter suppression? 3. We're going to review potential options for handling violating or partially-violating content aside from the binary leave-it-up or take-it-down decisions. I know many of you think we should have labeled the President's posts in some way last week. Our current policy is that if content is actually inciting violence, then the right mitigation is to take that content down -- not let people continue seeing it behind a flag. There is no exception to this policy for politicians or newsworthiness. I think this policy is principled and reasonable, but I also respect a lot of the people who think there may be better alternatives, so I want to make sure we hear all those ideas. I started meeting with the team yesterday and we're continuing the discussion soon. In general, I worry that this approach has a risk of leading us to editorialize on content we don't like even if it doesn't violate our policies, so I think we need to proceed very carefully. Ideas related to decision-making: 4. We're going to work on establishing a clearer and more transparent decision-making process. This is clearly not the last difficult decision we're going to have to make, and I agree with the feedback from many of you that we should have a more transparent process about how we weigh the different values and equities at stake, including safety and privacy. I think we can provide more transparency into what goes into the policy briefings and recommendations that get sent to me. These analyses are done thoroughly by Monika Bickert's team and take into account many voices. Since I accept the team's recommendations the vast majority of the time, this process is where I think we should focus most on transparency. For the most sensitive escalations where I discuss with the team further rather than just accepting their recommendation over email, we can try to outline how we incorporate all perspectives into those follow-up discussions as well, even though that tends to vary depending on the equities at stake in each decision. 5. More broadly, we're going to review whether we need to change anything structurally to make sure the right groups and voices are at the table -- not only when decisions affecting a certain group are being made, but when other decisions that may set precedents are being made as well. I'm committed to elevating the representation of diversity, inclusion and human rights in our processes and management team discussions, and I will follow up soon with specific thoughts on how we can structurally improve this. Proactive initiatives to advance racial justice and voter engagement: 6. We've started a workstream for building products to advance racial justice. Many of you have shared ideas in the past few days on product improvements we can look at, and I've been impressed by how quickly we've moved here. I've asked Fidji to be responsible for this work, and Ime will be shifting some volunteers from our New Products Experimentation team to focus on this as well. They'll have more to share on the first set of projects we're planning to take on soon. 7. We're building a voter hub to double down on our previous get-out-the-vote efforts. At the end of the day, voting is the best way to hold our leaders accountable and address many of these long term questions about justice. Our efforts will draw on lessons we learned from our successful Covid Information Center in order to make our voting and civic engagement efforts as central as our efforts around Covid recovery. We'll focus on making sure everyone has access to accurate and authoritative information about voting, as well as building tools to encourage people to register to vote and help them encourage their friends and communities to vote as well. In 2016, we ran one of the largest get out the vote efforts in history. I expect us to do even better in 2020. To members of our Black community: I stand with you. Your lives matter. Black lives matter. We have so far to go to overcome racial injustice in America and around the world, and we all have a responsibility and opportunity to change that. I believe our platforms will play a positive role in this, but we have work to do to make sure our role is as positive as possible. These ideas are a starting point and I'm sure we'll find more to do as we continue on this journey. I encourage you all to also check out Maxine’s post about how you can give direct feedback on product, integrity and content policy ideas as well. Thanks for all your input so far, and I'm looking forward to making progress together over the coming weeks and months.
caiobegotti 6y ago
It's incredible that he and his army of PR folks actually thought this post would convince people they are good guys doing a lot of hard work to fix those issues by now.
mahgnous 6y ago
Fuck off Facebook, you've done more to divide people than anyone else out there.
moron4hire 6y ago
Delete your Facebook account. Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. It might minutely inconvenience you for a week, but you'll be much happier thereafter.
- skytreader 6y ago
  Except a bunch of people who matter to me are not as comfortable with technology as HN's readership and for them the easiest way to get hold of me (or anyone else) is via Facebook. > Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. I used to think like this in university and even a few years after but having grown my social circle beyond tech, I now find this line of thinking snobbish. On the contrary, since these people matter to me, I don't want them to have to figure out how to get hold of me. There should be a default option to get to me and for most of them that is, unfortunately, Facebook. Yes email didn't suddenly stop working, IRC is still a thing, there are a lot of other apps out there that respect your privacy, etc., but these people buy the Android phone that fits their budget, sees that FB is installed by default and keeps in touch with that. And the UX of Messenger is just, hands down better and more personal than any email client their phone comes with.
  - moron4hire 6y ago
    It's not snobbish. Your way of thinking is insultingly infantilising. I'm sorry for the disparity between your post length and mine, but there isn't anything else to say. You view the people around you as fundamentally incapable. "How ever did those poor, stupid assholes figure out how to talk to each other before us technical people came along?"
    - skytreader 6y ago
      I don't view the people around me as "fundamentally incapable". I am saying they are _unwilling_ to adopt a mode of communication other than Facebook because of Facebook's _ubiquity_. And I think it's a big mistake not to acknowledge how much this ubiquity factors into Facebook's grip in the social media market. You are saying: "Delete Facebook. It's easy, you will be happier". And all I am pointing out is why this is such a gross oversimplification of the issue to the point that it does not really contribute a viable solution. > "How ever did those poor, stupid assholes figure out how to talk to each other before us technical people came along?" I don't see how my post comes across as something as condescending as this. You misread me greatly.
greatwhitenorth 6y ago
Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.
- DevX101 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
  - nemetroid 6y ago
    Is this an argument against the parent post? If so, it's not clear what the argument is.
    - turndown 6y ago
      The radio station mentioned was the inciting element in a genocide. Surely it does not take a large amount of analysis to understand that the underlying mechanism, dissemminating lies or propoganda on a widely used, easily accessed medium, applies directly to OP...
      - nemetroid 6y ago
        The link is just an example of how some speech is bad. The point of the original comment was that badness should be determined by laws, and not by the moderation policies of private companies. I don’t see how the linked article forms an argument for or against that position.
        turndown 6y ago
        The link provides a clear example of where this policy fails: false statements about the Tutsi & other ethnic groups lead to a genocide. None of this was illegal within the definition of free speech in Rwanda - as far as I am aware - thus providing an example where only moderating content on its basis of legality fails. As a cherry on top, the link also mentions that the radio station was actually endorsed by the government and provided equipment to them. Should the law be the best basis for moderation when the morality of those writing the laws cannot be spoken for?
eebynight 6y ago
Can I ask an honest question: For those of your that aren't satisfied with his response, what do you want Facebook to do? I haven't really been following this particular news story but I've been seeing a lot of anger against Facebook here and even on my LinkedIN feed.
- loopz 6y ago
  Decentralize the platform and secure personal data so data can't be brokered.
slantedview 6y ago
"We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to work on" "We're going to review" There's an old joke in Washington - when you want to look like you're doing something without doing anything at all, you commission a study (you review it).
- karmakaze 6y ago
  I hope there's a FB meme "We're going to work on shipping that feature" and "I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them."
vz8 6y ago
I would love to see a set of (enforced) policies that are blind to the user in question, if such a thing could be. For example: 1. If a post is flagged for review, the account name/owner, social score, social graph, ad revenue, all of it, is hidden from the review person, team, or algorithm. The only history they would have access to is violation history, influencing some kind of recidivism penalty. 2. The duration and severity of the consequences of the violation is applied to the account automatically, and the "judge" is unaware of any backlash from the user / community. 3. Any protest or appeal is sent through the process, blind again. I realize this is isn't nuanced or realistic in the slightest. What about mistakes? What about gamification of moderation processes? What about revenue impact? How could #1 be cleaned enough to fool anyone... Still.
- jacobush 6y ago
  What about revenue impact Write that in cursive on the black board 100 times before you are allowed back in your cubicle, employee #140932.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
Anyone else get a huge pop up with Zuckerburg's smirking face asking them to sign in? If facebook is going to release a PR statement to the world/general public, can they at least remove that sign in pop up for that statement page?
elliottinvent 6y ago
I'm not a fan of Facebook or Trump, but if I were writing the rules for governing a platform designed to connect people, then refusing to censor the elected president of the US would seem like a sensible rule. But it's not a sensible world at the moment.
BMorearty 6y ago
TL;DR mostly a bunch of promises about policies they're going to review. Few decisions made yet. But I do appreciate "Your lives matter. Black lives matter."
- hyperdunc 6y ago
  Have you noticed how corporations with dubious histories are falling over themselves right now to tell people "your lives matter and we're listening"? It's nothing more than opportunistic grandstanding.
lazyant 6y ago
> I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. You have to be f kidding me. Voter suppression (asking for paid fines, takin out poll places in particular communities), gerrymandering, foreign interference etc etc
- bagacrap 6y ago
  Heh, what election did FB protect? Which election was more legitimate due to the existence of FB?
  - lazyant 6y ago
    Exactly
quietthrow 6y ago
The business of fb is measured in MAU and DAU. These are their key metrics. The only things that drives these metrics are engagement. It’s basically the core of their business. And controversial items generate the most engagement. Unless it’s crossing the line in black and white terms for example like a beheading and most items don’t do that because the world is shades of grey they are good for business as they have the potential to generate more engagement. It’s basically good for business. What’s good for business may not be good for society. Sometime it is. Sometimes it’s not. Some people are ok with this and some are not.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonstewart 6y ago
That’s a lot of words for saying nothing.
mrlonglong 6y ago
Zuck can zuck off, simple as that.
sacks2k 6y ago
It will only 'heal divisions' if you are fair to everyone and do the right thing, instead of listening to demands of the mob. As an example, saying you want to murder conservatives, white people, the president, and anyone not progressive should be banned from the platform. At the moment, you say something that can even be interpreted as hate in an indirect way toward a minority group or person and it's an instant ban. You can say you want to outright murder white people, cops, or even the president (I've seen all of these myself over the past few weeks) and it's not only allowed, but retweeted/shared and shared millions of times. Until this changes, it's not healing. It's giving special treatment to a minority group and allowing them to bully, harass, and threaten their perceived enemies in the name of equality. The mainstream news simultaneously tells us that it's only 'white people' that are the ones agitating, rioting, and looting and then also saying that 'rioting is the language of the unheard'. I really don't want to live in a dystopian future like this and will do anything in my power to fight it.
Havoc 6y ago
That's painfully PR-ish even by PR standards. Lots of words not much substance. Review this, review that...
dane-pgp 6y ago
> If a newspaper publishes articles claiming that going to polls will be dangerous given Covid, how should we determine whether that is health information or voter suppression? That's a really interesting and tricky question. Now remove the word "how" and think about it again...
dereferenceddev 6y ago
It is very apparent that Facebook is wanting to avoid appearing to be an "editor" of content in almost any shape or form in an effort to reduce their chances of being regulated by the government.
sumnobody 6y ago
As much of a shit show FB tends to be, it's still a personal choice to create an account and/or use the one you have. Put simply, don't use it. (I know, easier said than done, especially for the people that rely on FB to stay in contact with family and friends.) We can live without FB as difficult as it may seem for some. We did just fine prior to the social media paradigm and can certainly do without the hate and vitriol promulgated through social media platforms, especially FB. Let the down votes begin!
GoodJokes 6y ago
lol he even friday news dumped it!
flipgimble 6y ago
Facebook is a dying platform, and due to its enormous size and momentum it may be a decade before its downward trajectory is fully appreciated. Facebook will also fight like all hell to remain relevant, and the cheapest way is making empty pronouncement like they can help "heal the divisions in our society". Helps that they can never be made accountable for it. Why do I think its dying? Generative youth culture has long left it for other social media platforms. In the US even the middle aged suburban demographic is getting tired of the Karens and Boomers spewing their hatred or turning what could be valuable online community spaces into their culture war battle ground. Facebook is very good at driving engagement in people that are susceptible to conspiracy theories, extremist views on any spectrum and generally excels at turning people into assholes that would not be tolerated in civil society. Just because its statistically easier to get high engagement metrics from people that are susceptible to fear tactics and have low critical thinking ability, their algorithm hyper focused on feeding them exploitative content. To be honest Fox News perfected this on an older medium. Facebook claims ignorance and plausible deniability: all they are doing is maximizing the daily-average-user analytics. Its no wonder that it was the birth platform for Zenga and genre of games that exploits dopamine reward system. The games industry was too obvious about it and now cultural opinion turned them. They'll never go away, much like slots and casinos. Facebook is going with the same playbook but substituting shiny coin rewards with confirmation bias newsfeeds and viral factoids. Only sadder is that most of the executive team has no idea what their critics are talking about because they have largely no social acumen, empathy or wisdom. Really good at convention keynotes:"But look, we're also doing VR and AI! We can't wait to see what you do with it, our free developers!"... They can point to numbers going up in fancy real time dashboard, they get praise for shareholders and bosses. They don't understand the what kind of people they snare up to make their number work. People quitting their platform is a lagging indicator, at least by years, that they built nothing of lasting human value, but exploited flaws in human psychology. I could be wrong of course, cigarette companies are still going strong.
bbimbop 6y ago
Zuckerberg wasting our time as usual. Hope he can shut the eff up. Obviously he is one of the main weaknesses in our democracy. I hope he gets eaten.
rdiddly 6y ago
"We have work to do" in the last paragraph is exactly what he's said in every public apology for this or that.

Avicebron 6y ago

My grain of salt meter just kicked in, here's hoping.

blaufast 6y ago

This contains much too little discussion of the feed algorithms.

circlingthesun 6y ago

Lots of ideas, few commitments. I guess this is positive.

coliveira 6y ago

Nothing is really being announced. He said they will discuss a few things but what will come out of these discussions is not guaranteed. Great way to say you're doing something without doing anything.

cryptoz 6y ago
The most-used verb in the numbered list is 'review'. I hope some action comes of this, but, I dunno, it's Facebook.
- kjs3 6y ago
  I think you have your answer.
  - bg4 6y ago
    I think it's just about time for another Zuckerburg apology tour.
    - kjs3 6y ago
      I keep waiting for him to him to say "We have our Top People on it...Top People". I see him saying it with a monocle and white longhaired cat in his lap.
- jonstewart 6y ago
  I noticed that, too. Also: “going to”
tamaharbor 6y ago
Kind of like naming a street “Martin Luther King Jr Blvd”.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
Remember when Facebook made a few blog posts about how they were going to investigate ways to reduce fake news?

enkid 6y ago

A whole lot of review of policy and very little clear commitment to action.

Texasian 6y ago

oh good, they’re reviewing their policies. Worth just about as much as an internal investigation at a police department.

iandanforth 6y ago

You can unilaterally make critical decisions that favor conservative supporters, but to make common sense decisions that protect democracy you need to set up review boards? If you still participate in this pestilential quagmire of a social network, delete your account today.

flyinglizard 6y ago
As a non-user of Facebook (and a non-American), I'm curious to hear what kind of critical decisions favored conservative supporters? It seems like giving any voice to conservatives is considered a PR suicide right now. I'd be surprised if FB did that. (whether this is only within the tech world or a broader point of view in America will soon be discovered come elections time)
- hobs 6y ago
  You haven't been paying much attention then https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/media/facebook-conservative-leaders-meeting/ https://money.cnn.com/2016/05/18/media/facebook-conservative... https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-holding-private-dinners-with-conservatives-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-holding-priv... tl;dr conservatives bitched that social media has a liberal bias and social media moguls started listening. Same thing with twitter.
- _jal 6y ago
  Here is one recent article on the topic, but google around FB has been hiring Republican operatives to try to quell the abuse, among other things. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-... As a US American and non-FB user, I can say it is fairly obvious in the way Republican politicians attack them, and how they respond. There's a strategy Republicans use with the press, and it wouldn't surprise me if it isn't obvious to those who haven't seen it play out before.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  They don't do as much censorship of conservatives as liberal censors would like.

toiletfuneral 6y ago

how this guy has any credibility after Myanmar is beyond me

throw7 6y ago

As someone who doesn't use facebook at all, this reads as so hilarious. Zuck knows, in this "difficult moment", his internal employee memo would leak, so he makes it public outside the walled garden. Hey Mark, let us know when you have something concrete to say to us peons.

sdan 6y ago

He said that instead of flagging, they’ll take it down entirely. Guess that’s a step forward.

Kiro 6y ago

I'm surprised that the general sentiment on HN right now seems to be that Facebook should act gatekeepers, something that traditionally has been one of the major fears.

jkaplowitz 6y ago
A lot of freedom of speech policies and preferences, including US criminal law, make exceptions for speech that is likely to incite imminent violence. Look up the "true threat" doctrine. I'm not surprised that HN sentiment has a similar exception.
- belorn 6y ago
  I am pretty sure US free speech exceptions do not prohibit threats by government to deploy the military against people, even if that is the very embodiment of a true threat that is likely to incite imminent violence. But HN community is not against that. You can have a news article about Nation X declaring intention to send an army to against Y if people think Y deserve it. People in general love violence and encourage it when it is the right kind of violence against the right target.
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    Yeah, most speech that relates to violence is neither illegal nor necessarily opposed by HN commenters (and of course plenty of us disagree with each other on what we want to tolerate). The exceptions are a lot narrower.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Targeting own population with military is unconstitutional though, with just a few exceptions.
    - belorn 6y ago
      We can define Nation X as the US and Target Y as US citizen and go down different scenarios and see when it becomes the right kind of violence. A peaceful protest (this should be universally agreed on as a very bad target for military use). Rioters that burn cars and loot stores. White supremacists marching in the street. Exact same actions as any above but we call it terrorism. US citizens doing terrorism but which is indistinguishable from regular crime. US citizens doing terrorism, where military weapons like bombs are used (we could also split this up based on what reason the terrorist have).

Barrin92 6y ago

almost every paragraph in that post starts with "we will" or "we have". I'm sure Mark actually meant to say "I will" given that he more or less has unilateral control over the entire community of 2.5 billion people. The world's largest autocracy if you will. Wild propopsal, if the community and in this case the voices of African-American members matter so much, why not give up some of that decision making power

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Kapura 6y ago

He is clearly viewing this as another technical problem to solve. He's a highly technical person; this follows. But the issues he's being confronted with aren't technical issues of permissions and algorithm tuning; they're societal problems of power dynamics and information manipulation. These are human traits. They aren't problems that are "solved." They're issues that you have to take a stance on. Do you believe in letting people lie on your platform? What about advertisers? What if the advertiser is a political party? Further, this feels like it's worth precisely nothing, given what he says right up top: >I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them. Zuck has shown himself unwilling to accept the responsibility of controlling his platform. He is failing every user and employee of Facebook.

_jal 6y ago
> He is clearly viewing this as another technical problem to solve I think you misspelled PR. Facebook has repeatedly followed variants of this script. Do what Zuckerberg and Sandberg want, and if it blows up, find a way to finesse it or at least block and tackle until humanity is distracted by the next outrage. They lie, distract and keep doing whatever they want.
- ikeyany 6y ago
  You mean how after the Cambridge Analytica scandal when he testified in front of Congress? And how literally nothing came from that?
enraged_camel 6y ago
>> He's a highly technical person; this follows. Is Zuckerberg even that technical? I’m aware he worked on the site originally, but never got the impression that he was highly talented (compared to, say, Google’s founders).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aerovistae 6y ago

This reddit comment was addressed to the CEO of reddit, but it feels just as pertinent for Facebook and mark Zuckerberg. https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/remember_the_human_an_update_on_our_commitments/fsw964e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/remember_th... There's nothing in this announcement, it's toothless. "We'll think about it! We'll try to come up with something!" The man is useless. ------ This other, short comment from the same thread encapsulates it well, too: https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/-/fstgtta https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/gw5dj5/-/fstgtta

boplicity 6y ago

> I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, Facebook systematically promotes and propogates the most inflammatory content posted on its platform. Why? Because it is the most engaging. This is part of the intentional design of Facebook, and is the fundamental reason there are so many problematic things happening on the platform. Mark's "thoughts" on the topic do nothing to address this in any way. In other words, the plan is "business as usual."

asdf333 6y ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
- artsyca 6y ago
  We all act like we're above the false corporacy with our casual ways and toxic pecadilloes but it's actually a signal that we're willing to be even more ignorant than the average bloke.
kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
The vast majority of FB users use it for staying in touch with friends and family. The cynical framing we encounter on HN isn't actually representative of the experience of most FB users.
- OpieCunningham 6y ago
  Have you met my friends and family? Oy vey.
- goatherders 6y ago
  I disagree completely.
- boplicity 6y ago
  That gets to the heart of the problem, actually. People use Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends, yet Facebook still systematically pushes inflammatory content on them, despite that not being the "reason" people are there. And, eventually, it gets a surprisingly high percentage of people to respond to that inflammatory content, thus furthering the cycle.

trca 6y ago

Could someone copy / paste the text here for those of us who have blocked *.facebook.com domains in our /etc/hosts file?

a-wu 6y ago
I just shared the following note with our employees, and I want to share it with all of you as well. --- As we continue to process this difficult moment, I want to acknowledge the real pain expressed by members of our community. I also want to acknowledge that the decision I made last week has left many of you angry, disappointed and hurt. So I am especially grateful that, despite your heartfelt disagreement, you remain focused on taking positive steps to move forward. That can't be easy, so I just want to say I hear you and I'm grateful. I believe our platforms can play a positive role in helping to heal the divisions in our society, and I'm committed to making sure our work pulls in this direction. To all of you who have already worked tirelessly on ideas to improve, I thank you. You're making a difference, and together we'll make a difference. And while we will continue to stand for giving everyone a voice and erring on the side of free expression in these difficult decisions -- even when it's speech we strongly and viscerally disagree with -- I'm committed to making sure we also fight for voter engagement and racial justice too. Many of you have asked what concrete steps we can start working on to improve our products and policies. I want to share more about the seven areas I discussed at Q&A that we're focusing on initially. Based on feedback from employees, civil rights experts and subject matter experts internally, we're exploring the following areas, which fit into three categories: ideas related to specific policies, ideas related to decision-making, and proactive initiatives to advance racial justice and voter engagement. I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them. Ideas related to specific policies: 1. We're going to review our policies allowing discussion and threats of state use of force to see if there are any amendments we should adopt. There are two specific situations under this policy that we're going to review. The first is around instances of excessive use of police or state force. Given the sensitive history in the US, this deserves special consideration. The second case is around when a country has ongoing civil unrest or violent conflicts. We already have precedents for imposing greater restrictions during emergencies and when countries are in ongoing states of conflict, so there may be additional policies or integrity measures to consider around discussion or threats of state use of force when a country is in this state. 2. We're going to review our policies around voter suppression to make sure we're taking into account the realities of voting in the midst of a pandemic. I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. But there's a good chance that there will be unprecedented fear and confusion around going to the polls in November, and some will likely try to capitalize on that confusion. For example, as politicians debate what the vote-by-mail policies should be in different states, what should be the line between a legitimate debate about the voting policies and attempts to confuse or suppress individuals about how, when or where to vote? If a newspaper publishes articles claiming that going to polls will be dangerous given Covid, how should we determine whether that is health information or voter suppression? 3. We're going to review potential options for handling violating or partially-violating content aside from the binary leave-it-up or take-it-down decisions. I know many of you think we should have labeled the President's posts in some way last week. Our current policy is that if content is actually inciting violence, then the right mitigation is to take that content down -- not let people continue seeing it behind a flag. There is no exception to this policy for politicians or newsworthiness. I think this policy is principled and reasonable, but I also respect a lot of the people who think there may be better alternatives, so I want to make sure we hear all those ideas. I started meeting with the team yesterday and we're continuing the discussion soon. In general, I worry that this approach has a risk of leading us to editorialize on content we don't like even if it doesn't violate our policies, so I think we need to proceed very carefully. Ideas related to decision-making: 4. We're going to work on establishing a clearer and more transparent decision-making process. This is clearly not the last difficult decision we're going to have to make, and I agree with the feedback from many of you that we should have a more transparent process about how we weigh the different values and equities at stake, including safety and privacy. I think we can provide more transparency into what goes into the policy briefings and recommendations that get sent to me. These analyses are done thoroughly by Monika Bickert's team and take into account many voices. Since I accept the team's recommendations the vast majority of the time, this process is where I think we should focus most on transparency. For the most sensitive escalations where I discuss with the team further rather than just accepting their recommendation over email, we can try to outline how we incorporate all perspectives into those follow-up discussions as well, even though that tends to vary depending on the equities at stake in each decision. 5. More broadly, we're going to review whether we need to change anything structurally to make sure the right groups and voices are at the table -- not only when decisions affecting a certain group are being made, but when other decisions that may set precedents are being made as well. I'm committed to elevating the representation of diversity, inclusion and human rights in our processes and management team discussions, and I will follow up soon with specific thoughts on how we can structurally improve this. Proactive initiatives to advance racial justice and voter engagement: 6. We've started a workstream for building products to advance racial justice. Many of you have shared ideas in the past few days on product improvements we can look at, and I've been impressed by how quickly we've moved here. I've asked Fidji to be responsible for this work, and Ime will be shifting some volunteers from our New Products Experimentation team to focus on this as well. They'll have more to share on the first set of projects we're planning to take on soon. 7. We're building a voter hub to double down on our previous get-out-the-vote efforts. At the end of the day, voting is the best way to hold our leaders accountable and address many of these long term questions about justice. Our efforts will draw on lessons we learned from our successful Covid Information Center in order to make our voting and civic engagement efforts as central as our efforts around Covid recovery. We'll focus on making sure everyone has access to accurate and authoritative information about voting, as well as building tools to encourage people to register to vote and help them encourage their friends and communities to vote as well. In 2016, we ran one of the largest get out the vote efforts in history. I expect us to do even better in 2020. To members of our Black community: I stand with you. Your lives matter. Black lives matter. We have so far to go to overcome racial injustice in America and around the world, and we all have a responsibility and opportunity to change that. I believe our platforms will play a positive role in this, but we have work to do to make sure our role is as positive as possible. These ideas are a starting point and I'm sure we'll find more to do as we continue on this journey. I encourage you all to also check out Maxine’s post about how you can give direct feedback on product, integrity and content policy ideas as well. Thanks for all your input so far, and I'm looking forward to making progress together over the coming weeks and months.

caiobegotti 6y ago

It's incredible that he and his army of PR folks actually thought this post would convince people they are good guys doing a lot of hard work to fix those issues by now.

mahgnous 6y ago

Fuck off Facebook, you've done more to divide people than anyone else out there.

moron4hire 6y ago

Delete your Facebook account. Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. It might minutely inconvenience you for a week, but you'll be much happier thereafter.

skytreader 6y ago
Except a bunch of people who matter to me are not as comfortable with technology as HN's readership and for them the easiest way to get hold of me (or anyone else) is via Facebook. > Anyone that matters will be able to figure out how to get a hold of you. I used to think like this in university and even a few years after but having grown my social circle beyond tech, I now find this line of thinking snobbish. On the contrary, since these people matter to me, I don't want them to have to figure out how to get hold of me. There should be a default option to get to me and for most of them that is, unfortunately, Facebook. Yes email didn't suddenly stop working, IRC is still a thing, there are a lot of other apps out there that respect your privacy, etc., but these people buy the Android phone that fits their budget, sees that FB is installed by default and keeps in touch with that. And the UX of Messenger is just, hands down better and more personal than any email client their phone comes with.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  It's not snobbish. Your way of thinking is insultingly infantilising. I'm sorry for the disparity between your post length and mine, but there isn't anything else to say. You view the people around you as fundamentally incapable. "How ever did those poor, stupid assholes figure out how to talk to each other before us technical people came along?"
  - skytreader 6y ago
    I don't view the people around me as "fundamentally incapable". I am saying they are _unwilling_ to adopt a mode of communication other than Facebook because of Facebook's _ubiquity_. And I think it's a big mistake not to acknowledge how much this ubiquity factors into Facebook's grip in the social media market. You are saying: "Delete Facebook. It's easy, you will be happier". And all I am pointing out is why this is such a gross oversimplification of the issue to the point that it does not really contribute a viable solution. > "How ever did those poor, stupid assholes figure out how to talk to each other before us technical people came along?" I don't see how my post comes across as something as condescending as this. You misread me greatly.

greatwhitenorth 6y ago

Unless something is illegal, Facebook or any website should allow the content. There will always be people who don't like a person or a viewpoint. It's a slippery slope to start moderating content that is not illegal.

DevX101 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
- nemetroid 6y ago
  Is this an argument against the parent post? If so, it's not clear what the argument is.
  - turndown 6y ago
    The radio station mentioned was the inciting element in a genocide. Surely it does not take a large amount of analysis to understand that the underlying mechanism, dissemminating lies or propoganda on a widely used, easily accessed medium, applies directly to OP...
    - nemetroid 6y ago
      The link is just an example of how some speech is bad. The point of the original comment was that badness should be determined by laws, and not by the moderation policies of private companies. I don’t see how the linked article forms an argument for or against that position.
      - turndown 6y ago
        The link provides a clear example of where this policy fails: false statements about the Tutsi & other ethnic groups lead to a genocide. None of this was illegal within the definition of free speech in Rwanda - as far as I am aware - thus providing an example where only moderating content on its basis of legality fails. As a cherry on top, the link also mentions that the radio station was actually endorsed by the government and provided equipment to them. Should the law be the best basis for moderation when the morality of those writing the laws cannot be spoken for?

eebynight 6y ago

Can I ask an honest question: For those of your that aren't satisfied with his response, what do you want Facebook to do? I haven't really been following this particular news story but I've been seeing a lot of anger against Facebook here and even on my LinkedIN feed.

loopz 6y ago
Decentralize the platform and secure personal data so data can't be brokered.

slantedview 6y ago

"We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to review" "We're going to work on" "We're going to review" There's an old joke in Washington - when you want to look like you're doing something without doing anything at all, you commission a study (you review it).

karmakaze 6y ago
I hope there's a FB meme "We're going to work on shipping that feature" and "I want to be clear that while we are looking at all of these areas, we may not come up with changes we want to make in all of them."

vz8 6y ago

I would love to see a set of (enforced) policies that are blind to the user in question, if such a thing could be. For example: 1. If a post is flagged for review, the account name/owner, social score, social graph, ad revenue, all of it, is hidden from the review person, team, or algorithm. The only history they would have access to is violation history, influencing some kind of recidivism penalty. 2. The duration and severity of the consequences of the violation is applied to the account automatically, and the "judge" is unaware of any backlash from the user / community. 3. Any protest or appeal is sent through the process, blind again. I realize this is isn't nuanced or realistic in the slightest. What about mistakes? What about gamification of moderation processes? What about revenue impact? How could #1 be cleaned enough to fool anyone... Still.

jacobush 6y ago
What about revenue impact Write that in cursive on the black board 100 times before you are allowed back in your cubicle, employee #140932.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

Anyone else get a huge pop up with Zuckerburg's smirking face asking them to sign in? If facebook is going to release a PR statement to the world/general public, can they at least remove that sign in pop up for that statement page?

elliottinvent 6y ago

I'm not a fan of Facebook or Trump, but if I were writing the rules for governing a platform designed to connect people, then refusing to censor the elected president of the US would seem like a sensible rule. But it's not a sensible world at the moment.

BMorearty 6y ago

TL;DR mostly a bunch of promises about policies they're going to review. Few decisions made yet. But I do appreciate "Your lives matter. Black lives matter."

hyperdunc 6y ago
Have you noticed how corporations with dubious histories are falling over themselves right now to tell people "your lives matter and we're listening"? It's nothing more than opportunistic grandstanding.

lazyant 6y ago

> I have confidence in the election integrity efforts we've implemented since 2016. We've played a role in protecting many elections and now have some of the most advanced systems in the world. You have to be f kidding me. Voter suppression (asking for paid fines, takin out poll places in particular communities), gerrymandering, foreign interference etc etc

bagacrap 6y ago
Heh, what election did FB protect? Which election was more legitimate due to the existence of FB?
- lazyant 6y ago
  Exactly

quietthrow 6y ago

The business of fb is measured in MAU and DAU. These are their key metrics. The only things that drives these metrics are engagement. It’s basically the core of their business. And controversial items generate the most engagement. Unless it’s crossing the line in black and white terms for example like a beheading and most items don’t do that because the world is shades of grey they are good for business as they have the potential to generate more engagement. It’s basically good for business. What’s good for business may not be good for society. Sometime it is. Sometimes it’s not. Some people are ok with this and some are not.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jonstewart 6y ago

That’s a lot of words for saying nothing.

mrlonglong 6y ago

Zuck can zuck off, simple as that.

sacks2k 6y ago

It will only 'heal divisions' if you are fair to everyone and do the right thing, instead of listening to demands of the mob. As an example, saying you want to murder conservatives, white people, the president, and anyone not progressive should be banned from the platform. At the moment, you say something that can even be interpreted as hate in an indirect way toward a minority group or person and it's an instant ban. You can say you want to outright murder white people, cops, or even the president (I've seen all of these myself over the past few weeks) and it's not only allowed, but retweeted/shared and shared millions of times. Until this changes, it's not healing. It's giving special treatment to a minority group and allowing them to bully, harass, and threaten their perceived enemies in the name of equality. The mainstream news simultaneously tells us that it's only 'white people' that are the ones agitating, rioting, and looting and then also saying that 'rioting is the language of the unheard'. I really don't want to live in a dystopian future like this and will do anything in my power to fight it.

Havoc 6y ago

That's painfully PR-ish even by PR standards. Lots of words not much substance. Review this, review that...

dane-pgp 6y ago

> If a newspaper publishes articles claiming that going to polls will be dangerous given Covid, how should we determine whether that is health information or voter suppression? That's a really interesting and tricky question. Now remove the word "how" and think about it again...

dereferenceddev 6y ago

It is very apparent that Facebook is wanting to avoid appearing to be an "editor" of content in almost any shape or form in an effort to reduce their chances of being regulated by the government.

sumnobody 6y ago

As much of a shit show FB tends to be, it's still a personal choice to create an account and/or use the one you have. Put simply, don't use it. (I know, easier said than done, especially for the people that rely on FB to stay in contact with family and friends.) We can live without FB as difficult as it may seem for some. We did just fine prior to the social media paradigm and can certainly do without the hate and vitriol promulgated through social media platforms, especially FB. Let the down votes begin!

GoodJokes 6y ago

lol he even friday news dumped it!

flipgimble 6y ago

Facebook is a dying platform, and due to its enormous size and momentum it may be a decade before its downward trajectory is fully appreciated. Facebook will also fight like all hell to remain relevant, and the cheapest way is making empty pronouncement like they can help "heal the divisions in our society". Helps that they can never be made accountable for it. Why do I think its dying? Generative youth culture has long left it for other social media platforms. In the US even the middle aged suburban demographic is getting tired of the Karens and Boomers spewing their hatred or turning what could be valuable online community spaces into their culture war battle ground. Facebook is very good at driving engagement in people that are susceptible to conspiracy theories, extremist views on any spectrum and generally excels at turning people into assholes that would not be tolerated in civil society. Just because its statistically easier to get high engagement metrics from people that are susceptible to fear tactics and have low critical thinking ability, their algorithm hyper focused on feeding them exploitative content. To be honest Fox News perfected this on an older medium. Facebook claims ignorance and plausible deniability: all they are doing is maximizing the daily-average-user analytics. Its no wonder that it was the birth platform for Zenga and genre of games that exploits dopamine reward system. The games industry was too obvious about it and now cultural opinion turned them. They'll never go away, much like slots and casinos. Facebook is going with the same playbook but substituting shiny coin rewards with confirmation bias newsfeeds and viral factoids. Only sadder is that most of the executive team has no idea what their critics are talking about because they have largely no social acumen, empathy or wisdom. Really good at convention keynotes:"But look, we're also doing VR and AI! We can't wait to see what you do with it, our free developers!"... They can point to numbers going up in fancy real time dashboard, they get praise for shareholders and bosses. They don't understand the what kind of people they snare up to make their number work. People quitting their platform is a lagging indicator, at least by years, that they built nothing of lasting human value, but exploited flaws in human psychology. I could be wrong of course, cigarette companies are still going strong.

bbimbop 6y ago

Zuckerberg wasting our time as usual. Hope he can shut the eff up. Obviously he is one of the main weaknesses in our democracy. I hope he gets eaten.

rdiddly 6y ago

"We have work to do" in the last paragraph is exactly what he's said in every public apology for this or that.