4 ms·

> the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil > The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society s

by _bxg1 6y ago

> the conclusion that they are cartoonishly evil > The moral framework where Facebook "isn't a negative for society" is the one that says that a free society should be able to openly express itself I wasn't making any such grand claims. I intentionally scoped my argument to "Facebook has increased division in the world" and "increased division is bad", in an effort to keep it as non-subjective as possible. > In other words, how do you know that Facebook caused the polarization? I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-division-news-feed-algorithms https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio...

bhupy 6y ago
> I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio.. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio.... While this is indeed a compelling data point, I want to point out 2 things: 1. We have no way to verify the validity of the methodology, since the study is opaque to us. 2. We have no way to verify the veracity of the results, since the study is not peer reviewed. And while you didn't have to look very far, perhaps if you look even a little farther, you'll find that there are conflicting studies (in published peer reviewed research): "We combine nine previously proposed measures to construct an index of political polarization among US adults. We find that the growth in polarization in recent years is largest for the demographic groups least likely to use the internet and social media. For example, our overall index and eight of the nine individual measures show greater increases for those older than 75 than for those aged 18–39. These facts argue against the hypothesis that the internet is a primary driver of rising political polarization." [1] "Contrary to conventional wisdom, my analysis provides evidence that social media usage reduces mass political polarization."[2] "After conducting a detailed analysis of recommendations received by each channel type, we refute the popular radicalization claims. To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTube's recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content."[3] So this is by no means conclusive, and very much debatable. To repeat: the most charitable argument for "being proud" to work at FB is if you believe in classical liberal principles of free speech, and don't believe that social media itself creates polarization/division, it simply reveals it. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258 [2] http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/barbera-tpbw.pdf http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/barbera-tpbw.... [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211 https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211

by _bxg1 6y ago

bhupy 6y ago

> I didn't have to look very far; Facebook did the study itself, internally, and executives directly chose to ignore it: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio.. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270659/facebook-divisio.... While this is indeed a compelling data point, I want to point out 2 things: 1. We have no way to verify the validity of the methodology, since the study is opaque to us. 2. We have no way to verify the veracity of the results, since the study is not peer reviewed. And while you didn't have to look very far, perhaps if you look even a little farther, you'll find that there are conflicting studies (in published peer reviewed research): "We combine nine previously proposed measures to construct an index of political polarization among US adults. We find that the growth in polarization in recent years is largest for the demographic groups least likely to use the internet and social media. For example, our overall index and eight of the nine individual measures show greater increases for those older than 75 than for those aged 18–39. These facts argue against the hypothesis that the internet is a primary driver of rising political polarization." [1] "Contrary to conventional wisdom, my analysis provides evidence that social media usage reduces mass political polarization."[2] "After conducting a detailed analysis of recommendations received by each channel type, we refute the popular radicalization claims. To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTube's recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content."[3] So this is by no means conclusive, and very much debatable. To repeat: the most charitable argument for "being proud" to work at FB is if you believe in classical liberal principles of free speech, and don't believe that social media itself creates polarization/division, it simply reveals it. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258 https://www.nber.org/papers/w23258 [2] http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/barbera-tpbw.pdf http://rubenson.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/barbera-tpbw.... [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211 https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211