17 ms·
Facebook's employees reckon with the social network they've built
- tech-historian 6y ago> "Yaël Eisenstat, Facebook's former election ads integrity lead, said the employees’ concerns reflect her experience at the company, which she believes is on a dangerous path heading into the election. > “All of these steps are leading up to a situation where, come November, a portion of Facebook users will not trust the outcome of the election because they have been bombarded with messages on Facebook preparing them to not trust it,” she told BuzzFeed News. > She said the company’s policy team in Washington, DC, led by Joel Kaplan, sought to unduly influence decisions made by her team, and the company’s recent failure to take appropriate action on posts from President Trump shows employees are right to be upset and concerned." This is pretty damning stuff, coming from named, authoritative sources inside the company. I'm hopeful that the recent advertiser boycott will help shift priorities with leadership at the company, but I'm not holding my breath.
- TechBro8615 6y agoJust to be clear, by "shifting priorities," you mean that you hope the advertiser boycott causes Facebook employees to editorialize posts from politicians and world leaders?
- creaghpatr 6y agoThis is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different in 2020?
- tomrod 6y agoPeople trust the outcome generally, whether they like it or hate it. The folks aren't trusting the inputs. 2020 is not 2016. Polling is suggesting a large shift. That may cause distrust in the outcome itself if the outcome doesn't align to polling due to voter suppression efforts and other possible issues.
- tehjoker 6y agoJust saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. These elections are already illegitimate if you believe that they're supposed to express some kind of will of the majority. Additionally, the only areas of real contestation are suburban areas filled with reactionaries and relatively wealthy people. Dems have a lock on cities, Rs have a lock on rural areas. EDIT: Those of you downvoting, I think it's amusing that you think that clicking a button on a website will make this idea disappear, because I'm just stating reality. Try thinking about why America is so messed up if you're scared by de-legitimizing the elections system.
- tomrod 6y agoAll of these presume low shifts in the Overton window, which may or may not currently hold true. Further, 1/3 of the population voting may be "rational" (folks figure their individual votes don't sway things or are uninformed and don't care to take the time), may be due to suppression (gerrymandering, ID hurdles for non-evident potential problems), or other factors.
- tehjoker 6y agoYou're right that anything can happen in this election, but reduced participation is a long term trend. If people think their votes don't matter in an alleged democratic system, that's a huge problem for its legitimacy. If they're uninformed, it's because they probably think that their vote doesn't matter or there's no good information for them. Both are troubling.
- Izkata 6y ago> Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. It's a little over 1/2 for presidential elections (over 2/3 in some states). Midterm elections are what's around 1/3. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout...
- tehjoker 6y ago
- loopz 6y agoIf people suspect fraud and did nothing about it, they don't deserve to live in a free democratic society, and won't.
- shostack 6y agoBut wouldn't these people still exist and not trust the outcome regardless? I wonder what the media consumption of these individuals looks like beyond Facebook.
- dannyw 6y agoAdvertiser boycott is a bit limited in effectiveness as FB's revenues come from its long tail, and direct to consumer brands are snapping inventory up.
- vmchale 6y agoI found it funny they were boycotting in the middle of a pandemic. I assume some have to cut costs, and some (like Purell) hardly need marketing!
- chrisco255 6y agoWait, you think a social media company should be in the business of regulating what politicians or people can say about politics? The damning thing is that people believe a corporation should be in charge of deciding acceptable parameters for speech. Some part of this article is spin. You can take a Trump tweet and spin it in a really horrific way if you like. Is Trump calling for laws to be enforced against property destruction and violent rioters? Or is Trump calling for violence against peaceful protesters? It's a matter of perspective and therein lies the rub. You want censors to wade into these grey areas and declare one perspective to be the one true viewpoint. The real world does not work this way, and what I'm surprised at is the lack of recognition and the overall immaturity at tech companies and perhaps modern society in general that this is the case. Everybody thinks of themselves as the good guys. That is part of the human condition.
- paulgb 6y agoFacebook's corporate spin on this has been that all calls for them to improve behavior come down to calls for moderation, and I've been a bit sad to see HN (not you specifically, but in all of these discussions) buying into that spin. There are plenty of ways Facebook could improve that are not moderation, starting with removing the incentives that make the most divisive/controversial speech have the furthest reach.
- SaltyLemonZest 6y agoTo be clear, Eisenstat's concern here is that Facebook isn't exercising enough editorial control over the content it allows. She argues that Facebook ought to remove content which upsets its employees, its advertisers, or the civil rights community.
- andreilys 6y agoThe world is a big place, if you take any piece of content it’s bound to offend someone. Should we ban content that promotes the Big Bang theory because it’s offensive to creationists?
- untog 6y agoDoes the Big Bang Theory encourage violence against creationists? I don’t ask that question seriously, just to point out that generalising things isn’t always useful. For example, “hate speech” is a defined term and the Big Bang theory ain’t it.
- SaltyLemonZest 6y agoIn one of the controversies discussed in the article, Facebook banned an ad on the grounds that an upside-down red triangle constitutes hate speech - it's "a triangle symbol used by Nazis to identify political prisoners", you see. So I'm not sure the concept is quite as well-defined as you're suggesting.
- brendoelfrendo 6y agoExcept that is defined, that's a thing that's real, and the upside down red triangle specifically was used to identify political prisoners of the Nazi party, like liberals, socialists, and unionized laborers.[1] I guess I'm not sure of your point, because to me, the use of the symbol, in a political context, and especially in the context of a polemic populist political campaign, is problematic, regardless of whether or not the Trump campaign or whoever backed that advertisement knew what it was. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge
- analyte123 6y agoIt's pretty damning, but not in the direction the article wants it to be. Facebook is a very powerful company, so it's more shocking that it can be rocked by politically motivated hysteria over a "https://emojipedia.org/red-triangle-pointed-up/" https://emojipedia.org/red-triangle-pointed-up/" symbol (the actual subject of most of this article) than that it took an extra few days to delete a highly-debatable usage of that symbol by the US president.
- creato 6y agoI feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chance of rising above the noise. Not anymore.
- dr_dshiv 6y agoAmen. The thing that's funny is it seems relatively straightforward to measure the positive and negative interactions and promote appropriately and transparently.
- planb 6y agoThis is so right. But are you aware of any ideas what to do about this? It seems like everyone has just accepted that‘s the way it is now.
- paulgb 6y agoUnfortunately this doesn't work unless a massive group of people does it, but: stop sharing things that make you angry. They make you angry so that you share them. So much toxicity is rooted in exploiting this dynamic.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoI'm not sure what your whole list of requirements is for a solution, but: how about simply not using Facebook at all?
- airstrike 6y agoFavor moderated communities over "free" communities Push for ad-free social networks (probably not free to users, then)
- koheripbal 6y agoIt's more than just the toxicity of the conversations. These vapid online brawls have engaged millions more people to vote who never would have voted in the past. Hence, introducing an easily swayed group of uneducated voters into the pool, and debasing politics to their level. If democracy represents the intelligence of the average voter, then engaging literally tens of millions of uneducated/emotional/immature people to vote significantly diminishes the ability of our government to make decisions and/or speak about problems honestly.
- lowdose 6y agoDoes WeChat cause the same problems in China as Facebook & Twitter in the west?
- SaltyLemonZest 6y agoObviously there's less open dialogue about it, but I think it's fair to say that it must. The CCP censors it very heavily, sometimes explicitly stating they're trying to prevent rumors and misinformation.
- Nextgrid 6y agoI'm pretty sure WeChat has many revenue streams that don't depend on engagement, thus they have no benefit in encouraging toxic behavior. The main problem with toxicity is not just the people but that the mainstream platforms are built to amplify the worst out of people because that's how they make their money.
- Lammy 6y agoMaintaining societal cohesion is the justification for a great many of PRC's actions (I would say 'evils', but that's my judgement), including the Great Firewall, extermination of Uyghurs, etc. It is fundamentally a waste of time to compare that society to America's melting pot on the level we're discussing.
- lowdose 6y agoNon of the solutions China comes up with is worth to discuss?
- Barrin92 6y agoI've found it even of little use to bring up frameworks of other Western countries. I once got a lot of angry replies because I brought up the German approach of mostly just tackling hate speech and having independent non-profit fact-checking organisations label and correct posts, which is about as non-invasive as it gets while trying to deal with the problem, still got a ton of responses about censorship and free speech. The US is basically free-speech fundamentalist. Expression trumps truth, with that view in mind you by definition can't deal with the problem.
- deckar01 6y agoIs there a source for the video? I am only seeing an audio clip in this article and I can’t seem to find the video by googling “Max Wang facebook”.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoIt's a leak, so I suspect that Buzzfeed will be the only source.
- minimaxir 6y agoThe engineer just posted the video themselves to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBQ1_a70KI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyBQ1_a70KI
- dr_dshiv 6y agoI think the idea is we need diversity in online social media. I'd like to see human editors come back. Here's how Benjamin Franklin dealt with his social media platform: "In the conduct of my newspaper, I carefully excluded all libelling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place... "
- RangerScience 6y agoI mean, isn't that approximately what's occurring that some people ("writers") are up in arms about, except instead of "libel" and "personal abuse" it's things like "hate speech"?
- 1234letshaveatw 6y agoAs long as the editors are "our guys" and not any of "their guys"
- SaltyLemonZest 6y agoOn the contrary, I regularly read articles and watch videos edited by "their guys". I don't have much interest in listening to people scream on social media, but I'm genuinely happy to learn the perspectives of people who don't think the same way as me.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nullc 6y agoA consequence of this is that you may find yourself changing your views-- or at least being more open minded about things your friends don't approve of. If it's just politics with no direct relevance to your life-- are you really better off that way? Is being more right or just more open minded about something that you have no influence do you any good if it alienates you from friends or family at all?
- koheripbal 6y agoThis long article doesnt address the most critical point. If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit? This isn't a new dillemma. People working for tabacco companies have always been in the same boat.
- paulgb 6y ago> This long article doesnt address the most critical point. > If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit? The article opens with a story of someone who quit.
- DannyB2 6y agoYou're right. He quit. However he seems to be the exception.
- paulgb 6y agoMaybe, I guess it's hard to know without knowing their retention metrics. As one anecdote, I was in the negotiation phase of an Oculus offer earlier this year and turned it down the same weekend of that infamous post[1] and I know a few people in my network whose employment status has quietly changed away from Facebook. [1] Less because I was certain they should moderate it, and more because I thought it was weak how Zuckerberg threw Jack Dorsey under the bus, and how cynically the company steers the conversation to free speech to avoid taking responsibility for the adverse effects of product decisions. artfulhippo made the point I'm trying to make up-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23929769
- ciarannolan 6y agoIt took him 9 years of collecting a fat paycheck and enabling Facebook to find his moral compass. Is it wrong to be skeptical of these millionaire developers who ride off into the sunset to retire but leave a final "oh btw, lots of problematic stuff at my former employer" message?
- artfulhippo 6y agoI loved Max Wang’s point that Facebook has chosen to focus on political engagement over social engagement. Like many people who used FB early, I remember when it was more about friends than allies (and opponents). Facebook profits massively from the politics of outrage, and for Zuckerberg to claim that Free Speech is a moral imperative is for him to take a Strategy Credit[0]. While I strongly believe that Free Speech is a moral imperative, I don’t believe that Facebook makes decisions on a moral basis. [0]: https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/ https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/
- jcroll 6y agoFacebook makes decisions on a profit basis and by that metric is meteorically successful. These Facebook employees that spent years collecting their $500k pay cheques might want to consider this before posting their videos criticizing the company's direction
- spoopyskelly 6y ago"wrongthink at scale"
- boltzmann_ 6y agoIn that case twitter is way more toxic than FB.
- mherdeg 6y agoFacebook's famously tight-knit and tight-lipped engineering organization has become increasingly leaky in the past couple of years, as posts and data make it to the press with surprising regularity. What changed? Is it morale? Or something that happens at scale? Does the rate of leaks say anything about the health of the company?
- xixixao 6y agoBasically everyone in the company has access to stuff that gets leaked, so it’s not eng specific. What changed is that the company has grown immensely in numbers. Maintaining a culture among an ever growing group of people is a tough task.
- kazinator 6y agoWhat changed is that people joining Facebook as employees now likely have preexisting intentions to leak information.
- throwawaysea 6y agoThe same thing that happened at the other tech companies. A newer, younger generation of employees joined. The Gen Z cohort seems to be much more ready to bring politics and ideological wars into the workplace, and really view any institution they're a part of as an opportunity to weaponize that institution. This culture had already taken root on college campuses, and my belief is that they view that as the 'normal' way of operating, including making purposeful leaks. I know this is anecdotal and speculative but I am offering it up as an explanation nevertheless, and would love to hear other theories on what changed. I do not believe that the change is simply due to the companies growing bigger. They already were big in prior years and had gone through phases of fast growth in employee count previously. Something is different this time, which is why I am pointing to a generational change.
- mandevil 6y agoTalk to a reporter about why people leak. The reason people leak is when they feel that the organization doesn't listen to them and they can't steer the organization any other way. If your employees feel respected and listened to- and that their internal warnings are being heeded- they won't leak to an outsider. If they feel that they are a Cassandra, doomed to be correct but ignored, they will leak. Now sometimes workers are wrong- the problem they were obsessed with wasn't actually that serious, their boss did take their advice into account and decided to resolve it a different way, etc., but in general, lack of respect is why people leak. The implications for Facebook are obvious.
- tijuco2 6y agoSocial medias have been silencing every conservative opinion on their platforms, because most of their employees can't stand different opinions. These people are unmanageable and want to make activism using a platform they don't own. At the same time they look the other way when it comes to progressive comments. If he doesn't like different opinions, intrinsic to democracy, maybe we should ask Mr Wang's parents if they miss China.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoTurning this into a nationalistic slur and personal attack is no way to make your case. It also breaks the site guidelines and will get you banned here, so please don't go that route. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- vannevar 6y agoFacebook is not a "social network" in any meaningful sense of that word. It's a largely unmoderated narrowcast platform accessible to anyone willing to put down the money to use it, regardless of motivation, as long as it isn't obviously pornographic.
- notacoward 6y agoWhy can't it be both? I see people using it both ways, every day.
- vannevar 6y agoYou see people trying to use it that way, while wading through a morass of paid advertising and promoted memes. I can use a brick as a hammer, too, but that doesn't make the brick a hammer.
- notacoward 6y agoWhy do so many people forget that they control their feed? Maybe less than some of us would like, but I carefully curate my feed and use mute and so on and my feed has very little junk in it. Mostly family stuff and jokes/memes, with some ads for stuff that actually does interest me. It's not hard. Most of us here solve harder problems every day.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 6y agoWe should probably make a 2020 version of this post: https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-change-the-world/ https://qbix.com/blog/2019/03/08/how-qbix-platform-can-chang... Another month another 20 reasons to have an open source alternative.
- lr 6y agoSocial media, and all of the "talking heads" on network news and talk radio, are basically in an arms race, just like advertisers have been for years. For instance, Coke can't stop advertising because then Pepsi or another brand will take over, i.e., they have to keep it up. We are now at that same point with politics: everyone has to keep it up, and even more so; constantly upping the ante. Facebook is the dominant platform for upping the ante, which gives them money, and more importantly, power.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- worksmart122 6y agoneed a culture that has integrity, transparency, and social responsibility.
- draw_down 6y agoWhen you're busy vesting your millions, all those silly people trying to warn you about what your company is building towards are just haters. Then once you're set, you can turn around and be so horrified and shocked, just shocked about what's happened. Thanks so much for your concern, guys.
- fbbf1001 6y agoOT question: How many FB employees feel FB was responsible for Trump's election? If that's one of their key/sources of compunction about their company, they should realize Trump became a national figure because of NBC (who made him into this mythical business figure), Fox news (that gave him a national platform to the Republican base) and Breitbart that probably gave his campaign insights into the pulse of American voters knowing what issues got the most traction with their readers. It's worth remembering it was the media that gave Trump an estimated $5 billion in free media advertising not FB [0]. This free media given to a candidates is one of the darkest way of interfering in US elections and giving money to a candidate. I'm sorry but there is a bit of arrogance to think FB elected Trump when the scale that media gives to an issue or to a candidate is far more devastating than anything FB can do. Keep in mind, Trump got 8.5 million votes from those who voted for Obama in 2012 [1] I know the focus has been on racism among many of my friends though I'm not disputing a large number of Trump base is motivated by racist views. However, what explains the 8.5 million 2012 Obama voter voting for Trump is his economic protectionism message. For years, the Democratic party has steadily been abandoning its working class base and many saw NAFTA (associated with Bill Clinton and Clintons as a whole) as a reason for their economic decline. It should not have been a surprise why many voted for Trump over Hillary. Blaming the growing economic disparity that Trump exploited and winning the election to FB and Mark is really scapegoating here. [0] https://www.thestreet.com/politics/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house-13896916 https://www.thestreet.com/politics/donald-trump-rode-5-billi... [1] https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/ https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-...
- nailer 6y ago> a post from President Donald Trump that seemingly called for violence against people protesting the police killing of George Floyd. This seems very unlikely, and there's no link or screenshot of the actual post to support the statement. Twitter has previously taken statements that laws will be enforced as 'calls to violence' so it wouldn't be surprising if the same thing is occurring here.
- bhupy 6y agoThe steel-man argument is that the President's statements practically amount to an indirect call for violence. There's no other way for the state to enforce laws except to use the messy apparatus of the police, which may result in collateral damage/violence.
- seneca 6y ago> The steel-man argument is that the President's statements practically amount to an indirect call for violence. There's no other way for the state to enforce laws except to use the messy apparatus of the police, which may result in collateral damage/violence. Which would mean that literally any discussion of government policy which could result in law enforcement is a call for violence. While I don't particularly disagree with this stance, and Libertarians in general would be overjoyed to see this shift in perspective, I don't expect to see social media companies ban all discussion of political policy. e.g. "Deadbeat fathers should have to pay child support". If you fail to pay child support you will eventually be arrested. If you refuse to comply with arresting officers, they will use force against you. Therefore calling for child support is an indirect call for violence.
- bhupy 6y agoI actually don't think there's that much wrong with what the President tweeted/posted, but I do think it's inaccurate to compare what he said to just any old discussion of government policy. He wasn't just discussing government policy, he was talking about enforcing it in a very particular way ("the shooting starts"). There is definitely a qualitative difference between: "Deadbeat fathers should have to pay child support" and "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" I personally disagree that the difference matters, but you have to accept that it's certainly debatable.
- ktrl 6y agoI have been wondering why Facebook has become the only platform that tolerates right-wing speech. The other platforms took the convenient route and kicked out right-wing voices. Why exactly is Facebook risking both bad press and a revolt from its overwhelmingly progressive employees?
- ciarannolan 6y agoI had always thought it was to fend off DOJ and regulatory action from the Trump administration.
- bhupy 6y agoFacebook can afford to do so because they have higher margins allowing for more experimentation/risk-taking. Businesses in more competitive spaces are unable to take tough stands. The New York Times cannot be the New York Times of New York Times v Sullivan anymore, because their ad monopoly has been decimated. But Facebook can be the NYT of NYT v Sullivan, because they have 40% margins on their ad business. One thing I have been wondering is: why is Google so lacking in conviction?
- kgraves 6y agoTwitter still has right wing folks on there.
- CM30 6y agoAudience. Twitter has a more left leaning audience than many social media platforms, hence its creep away from tolerating anything right wing or centrist. Facebook's audience is predominantly more balanced in that regard, with a larger percentage of conservatives using it in some way (especially those in older generations). If they tried to go the same way as Twitter or Reddit, a large percentage of Facebook users would be absolutely pissed, and they'd likely lose a lot of traffic.
- tyrust 6y agoI think you're confusing conservative views with hateful ones. Zuckerberg makes the same mistake and it's discussed in the article: >“He [Zuckerberg] uses ‘diverse perspective’ as essentially a cover for right-wing thinking when the real problem is dangerous ideologies,” Brandi Collins-Dexter, a senior campaign director at Color of Change, told BuzzFeed News after reading excerpts of Zuckerberg’s comments. “If you are conflating conservatives with white nationalists, that seems like a far deeper problem because that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about hate groups and really specific dangerous ideologies and behavior.” Other platforms has plenty of voices from all parts of the spectrum. The difference is that they might actually be making a more sincere attempt at moderating.
- sowellecho 6y ago"If a man is not a Socialist at 20 be has no heart, but if he remains one at 30 he has no head." I don't know who said this, but this is a great example of how our minds mature. The probably unintentional ageism in tech has a major, quite literally civilization changing consequence. We are creating power centers which have too many young people who haven't really thought a lot of things through, certainly not the unintended economic consequences, and who glibly dismiss people who disagree with their premises as some kind of "ism".
- orhmeh09 6y agoThat’s a crass dismissal of the people involved here and socialism. You think that the problem really is that everyone at Facebook is too young and is thus more inclined toward recklessness (somehow involving socialism)? PS: Would you be shocked to learn that some become socialists after age 30?
- RussianBot34 6y agoLOL the past 100 years of human history is an epic dismissal of Socialism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro/Guevara, Hitler, Mussolini, Maduro. Socialism is pure evil insanity, the worst sickness of mankind.
- Talanes 6y agoThat quote is just a way for people who have grown more conservative than they were in youth to excuse their cognitive dissonance. It's not some great truth.
- nacho2sweet 6y agoDo people who work at facebook proudly tell people they just met at bar that they work at facebook? cause it wouldn't play well in my circles.
- throwgeorge 6y agolol what circles do you travel in? i was on a call last week where this guy that works for DOD took issue with me working at Facebook. the irony is quite delicious there.
- KaiserPro 6y agono, my team at least says they got bought out.
- tims33 6y agoFB's religion around AB testing for engagement and their views on free speech (which are mostly good) creates a complicated product that brings out much of the worst in people. They need to reevaluate their engagement at all costs philosophy.
- seddin 6y agoThe media always blames Mark for every bad action that his company does, but what about all the other employees, aren't they just as guilty as him?
- site-packages1 6y agoIt's possible to be an employee at what you think is an immoral company but be doing some innocuous that's just a part of a bigger whole. Does improving an internal observability tool as your job make you just as culpable as Mark? At what point do your actions become immoral? Just working for the company? Building anything for the company while an employee? Maybe you have to be the last step implementor of some bad policy before the immorality attaches. I don't really know. But the answers to these questions aren't clear and up for debate. What is harder to argue is whether the person directing everything and with a bird's eye view of the direction of the company is culpable for that company's misdeeds. I think this makes it more clear to blame Mark than "all the other employees."
- viklove 6y ago> At what point do your actions become immoral? When your livelihood is funded by this kind of vile deception and manipulation, your actions are undoubtedly immoral.
- mxawng 6y agosounds like you should cease participation in capitalism and also society then. i know a guy popping out of a well who would like to have a word with you! you might not like the messy reality, but there are lots of my former coworkers who feel inclined to stick around because of their work visa, or to pay off their loans, or because they felt their FB offer was a lucky break and they want to best support their kids. if you're not responsible for all violence or oppression in your nation as a citizen, trust me—folks employed by a given employer are likewise not wholly culpable for the actions of their companies.
- tyrust 6y agoThe article provides several examples in which many employees have flagged certain content but that Zuck, who was the final decision maker, did not agree or follow through on those flags. As long as he's the one making the final call, he deserves more of the blame.
- Miner49er 6y agoOne thing that's interesting is that Facebook has also come under fire for banning/censoring anti-racists and black people for talking about racism: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-while-black-zucked-users-say-they-get-blocked-racism-discussion/2859593002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil... It would be one thing if they didn't censor anything, but censoring anti-racism but not racism seems to show that FB is taking a pro-racism stance.
- snthd 6y agoOff Topic: The URL clearly suggests your link was posted last year (and I'm sure I've read it before), but the inline article "date" is Jul 9th 2020.
- Miner49er 6y agoIt was published last year, the updated date was July 9th, 2020.
- d_burfoot 6y agoFrom the article: > "White men are so fragile," she fired off, sharing William's post with her friends, "and the mere presence of a black person challenges every single thing in them." > It took just 15 minutes for Facebook to delete her post for violating its community standards for hate speech. I'm pretty sure that comments like that don't count as "anti-racism".
- Miner49er 6y agoThey definitely do. But anyway, that's only a single example, one women was banned for posting a screenshot of a racist message she received.
- xoxoy 6y agoit took Covid for me to really believe how dangerous social media has become to society. it really has made people more divisive and angry and conspiratorial. didn’t really buy it when the Russia bot thing happened but now I do 100%
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- room505 6y agoI used to have a Facebook account and deleted it in 2009-2010. This is just me brainstorming, but would it make sense to have to submit a photocopy of your ID card to create a real name account for such a huge company, for the sake of creating something of a safe online forum/community? I would think people would be more responsible with what they post. I had done so for OfferUp, which to me, makes sense because people need to have a sense of safety and security when interacting with each other. I'd like to hear what others think.
- moon2 6y agoBrazilian government actually wanted to do it recently, require companies such as Facebook to require that you submit your ID and that you link a phone number to your account. [1] It sure makes things easier for the authorities, since they are also dealing with fake news and hate speech. However, it goes against the LGPD (like a Brazilian version of the GDPR). And it is hard to trust a company such as Facebook to keep data such as your ID. How can you be sure if they're keeping this data safe? How can you be sure they won't sell it? [1] https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/06/24/facebook-google-e-twitter-pl-das-fake-news-e-coleta-massiva-de-dados.htm https://www.uol.com.br/tilt/noticias/redacao/2020/06/24/face... (in Portuguese)
- foofoo4u 6y agoYears ago, Facebook for some reason thought I was a bot and disabled my account. They required that I upload a government issued ID to verify I am a real person. I was finding Facebook to be detrimental to my health at that time, so I felt it a perfect opportunity to leave the platform all together. Plus I didn't exactly feel comfortable giving them that kind of information.
- KaiserPro 6y agoThe thing that annoys the living shit out of me are two fold: 1) the content policy for the public is clear, well thought out and easy to understand. but that doesn't apply to politicians. The rules that apply to politicians is hidden, opaque and taken on the fly. 2) the moral compass of the leadership team is fundamentally blinkered and naive. They do not understand or seem to want to understand viewpoints of other people. Unless you are posh & rich and upper middle class, you have to battle really hard to get your point across.
- foofoo4u 6y agoThere seems to be a growing consensus here on HN that Facebook's ad-based revenue model is a source issue for why extremity, polarization, toxicity, and usage addition is occurring on the platform. All of these elements drive up engagement. The more engagement you have, the more profit the company makes. It's a feedback loop that's helping the company and shareholders, but at the cost of the stability of society at large. So here's one idea to address the problem that I'd like to get other's thoughts on. What if we declare ad-based revenue streams for social media platforms a form of market failure? What if we made it the law that social networks must charge a premium, a subscription-model if you will, to use their services. "Want to use Facebook? You'll need to subscribe for $2/month". What do you think the experience of using Facebook would be like then and, to an extent, society at large? It has been my experience that services I must subscribe to do a better job of respecting my data, privacy, are less toxic, have higher quality content, and are less addicting. What I am suggesting here is that the desired behavior can be directed through proper incentives.
- rbanffy 6y agoI have the impression we invented that Big Machine that drove the Krell to extinction in Forbidden Planet. It's just so that's far less spectacular than in the movie.