3 ms·

I agree with that. However, nothing is preventing Facebook from doing this. Facebook is incentivized to act as you describe. I do not see it as Facebook's resp

I agree with that. However, nothing is preventing Facebook from doing this. Facebook is incentivized to act as you describe. I do not see it as Facebook's responsibility to act in another way. Governments need to regulate this behavior. If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent.

slumpt_ 6y ago
You don’t see it as Facebook’s responsibility? To not actively push malignant content just because it gets views? Everyone in this world bears responsibility to one another. Of course there should be regulation to prevent the circumstance, but to the extent we want a livable world it is also all of our responsibility to not be degenerates. Facebook is being a degenerate and shrugging it off as “well it’s not MY responsibility to not be a degenerate!” feels hopelessly lost and without any critical introspection or thought at all.
- haffi112 6y ago
  Yes, I do not think so. I expect Facebook's goal to be to maximize shareholder value within the bounds of regulations. I do not expect an entity such as Facebook to behave in any other way. From Facebook's perspective, the current value system is possibly distorted, for example, because of a lack of competition. Suppose another social platform would enter the picture, and users would flock to that platform because it has a greater social responsibility. In that case, it might become Facebook's best interest to be more socially responsible as well. However, that has not happened yet. It is making me believe that the burden to solve this issue is with regulators, not Facebook.
  - nxc18 6y ago
    Regulatory capture is a thing. Consider an aircraft company that wants to sell comparably cheap but dangerous products that cut corners and have hacky solutions to core engineering problems. Short term profit for shareholders is the only thing that matters, forever and always. The aircraft company has three categories of options: A) don’t murder people and take the time and energy to get it right. Maybe they’re less competitive some years than others B) The aircraft company can be a ‘neutral’ actor and still try to cut corners, but leave the regulator alone to actually do its job. Note this is in the company’s long term interest because the success of the air travel industry depends on its long term track record of safety and consumer confidence that planes are thoroughly designed to not smash themselves into the ground at 500 mph. C) The aircraft company can lobby heavily, get special government treatment, corrupt the regulator, and arrange things such that they can sell the deadly plane and try to get away with it. It’s all about the Benjamins, as they say; just not any Benjamins in the plane of course. Now imagine that aircraft company not only has the money to lobby aggressively, but also controls what many, many consumers see on a daily basis, can show advertisements to the entire population for free, runs algorithms that promote ‘engaging’ (shocking, manipulative, emotionally salient, regardless of accuracy) content.
- njarboe 6y ago
  And when people say "Facebook" the really could (and maybe should) be using "Mark Zuckerburg" instead. He has complete control of Facebook and no one can remove him from that position. Mark Zuckerburg is responsible for what Facebook does more than almost any other CEO of a public company, I would think.
- intended 6y ago
  Well what about this: Malignant content is very hard to define. If I shared videos of mexican gang violence, people would end up calling Facebook headquarters and saying "get this off my feed.". Even though the content getting visibility is a success of overcoming local Mexican censors who are silencing voices talking about the issue. This happened. Mexican videos went viral, and when people in the UK woke up, they called their friends at FB and the material got removed. Also - Wouldn't Any algo that starts filtering for malignancy, have to become a sort of MR. Rogers algo? I guess, how would you define malignancy? By intent?
627467 6y ago
I, for one think that, "understanding manipulation" is an oxymoron. If you really understand then it's not really manipulation, right? All these web platforms have grown through strategic optimizations for engagement. It's simple. But the tactical mecanisms they use to achieve this permanent engagement are complex and adapt constantly. Otherwise they wouldn't be good for the purpose. The point is not to keep you engaged once. It to keep you engaged at their (platform's) will. You are right that it's not Facebook job to be less good at what they propose to do. But it is everybody elses job to determine if we want them (and others) to keep doing these things.
- slg 6y ago
  >I, for one think that, "understanding manipulation" is an oxymoron. If you really understand then it's not really manipulation, right? It sounds like someone never teared up at the moment when the music swells in a sappy dramatic movie. The human brain is weird. We can know we are receiving a placebo and still receive a benefit from the placebo effect[1]. Just because we can understand that we are being manipulated doesn't mean we can fully control it. [1] - https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/placebos https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/placebos
save_ferris 6y ago
> If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. This assumes that a platform which behaves more ethically or is better aligned with the public good can actually compete financially with a company like Facebook. If Facebook financially benefits by not acting in the public interest, what makes you think a competitor who is acting in the public interest is able to compete? The whole point of the problem is that being a bad actor is incredibly profitable in this case. This statement: > nothing is preventing Facebook from doing this. Facebook is incentivized to act as you describe. I do not see it as Facebook's responsibility to act in another way. and this statement: > If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. are inherently contradictory because Facebook is explicitly incentivized to misbehave, as you mention, meaning that any competitor trying to compete whilst acting in the public interest will never succeed. If acting in the public interest was profitable, Facebook would do it.
- haffi112 6y ago
  You're right, it was wishful thinking of me to assume that a competitor would be morally responsible and more profitable than Facebook.

slumpt_ 6y ago

You don’t see it as Facebook’s responsibility? To not actively push malignant content just because it gets views? Everyone in this world bears responsibility to one another. Of course there should be regulation to prevent the circumstance, but to the extent we want a livable world it is also all of our responsibility to not be degenerates. Facebook is being a degenerate and shrugging it off as “well it’s not MY responsibility to not be a degenerate!” feels hopelessly lost and without any critical introspection or thought at all.

haffi112 6y ago
Yes, I do not think so. I expect Facebook's goal to be to maximize shareholder value within the bounds of regulations. I do not expect an entity such as Facebook to behave in any other way. From Facebook's perspective, the current value system is possibly distorted, for example, because of a lack of competition. Suppose another social platform would enter the picture, and users would flock to that platform because it has a greater social responsibility. In that case, it might become Facebook's best interest to be more socially responsible as well. However, that has not happened yet. It is making me believe that the burden to solve this issue is with regulators, not Facebook.
- nxc18 6y ago
  Regulatory capture is a thing. Consider an aircraft company that wants to sell comparably cheap but dangerous products that cut corners and have hacky solutions to core engineering problems. Short term profit for shareholders is the only thing that matters, forever and always. The aircraft company has three categories of options: A) don’t murder people and take the time and energy to get it right. Maybe they’re less competitive some years than others B) The aircraft company can be a ‘neutral’ actor and still try to cut corners, but leave the regulator alone to actually do its job. Note this is in the company’s long term interest because the success of the air travel industry depends on its long term track record of safety and consumer confidence that planes are thoroughly designed to not smash themselves into the ground at 500 mph. C) The aircraft company can lobby heavily, get special government treatment, corrupt the regulator, and arrange things such that they can sell the deadly plane and try to get away with it. It’s all about the Benjamins, as they say; just not any Benjamins in the plane of course. Now imagine that aircraft company not only has the money to lobby aggressively, but also controls what many, many consumers see on a daily basis, can show advertisements to the entire population for free, runs algorithms that promote ‘engaging’ (shocking, manipulative, emotionally salient, regardless of accuracy) content.
njarboe 6y ago
And when people say "Facebook" the really could (and maybe should) be using "Mark Zuckerburg" instead. He has complete control of Facebook and no one can remove him from that position. Mark Zuckerburg is responsible for what Facebook does more than almost any other CEO of a public company, I would think.
intended 6y ago
Well what about this: Malignant content is very hard to define. If I shared videos of mexican gang violence, people would end up calling Facebook headquarters and saying "get this off my feed.". Even though the content getting visibility is a success of overcoming local Mexican censors who are silencing voices talking about the issue. This happened. Mexican videos went viral, and when people in the UK woke up, they called their friends at FB and the material got removed. Also - Wouldn't Any algo that starts filtering for malignancy, have to become a sort of MR. Rogers algo? I guess, how would you define malignancy? By intent?

627467 6y ago

I, for one think that, "understanding manipulation" is an oxymoron. If you really understand then it's not really manipulation, right? All these web platforms have grown through strategic optimizations for engagement. It's simple. But the tactical mecanisms they use to achieve this permanent engagement are complex and adapt constantly. Otherwise they wouldn't be good for the purpose. The point is not to keep you engaged once. It to keep you engaged at their (platform's) will. You are right that it's not Facebook job to be less good at what they propose to do. But it is everybody elses job to determine if we want them (and others) to keep doing these things.

slg 6y ago
>I, for one think that, "understanding manipulation" is an oxymoron. If you really understand then it's not really manipulation, right? It sounds like someone never teared up at the moment when the music swells in a sappy dramatic movie. The human brain is weird. We can know we are receiving a placebo and still receive a benefit from the placebo effect[1]. Just because we can understand that we are being manipulated doesn't mean we can fully control it. [1] - https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/placebos https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/03/placebos

save_ferris 6y ago

> If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. This assumes that a platform which behaves more ethically or is better aligned with the public good can actually compete financially with a company like Facebook. If Facebook financially benefits by not acting in the public interest, what makes you think a competitor who is acting in the public interest is able to compete? The whole point of the problem is that being a bad actor is incredibly profitable in this case. This statement: > nothing is preventing Facebook from doing this. Facebook is incentivized to act as you describe. I do not see it as Facebook's responsibility to act in another way. and this statement: > If people start to understand the way Facebook is manipulating them, then there is also an opportunity for another platform, which does not do so, or to a lesser extent. are inherently contradictory because Facebook is explicitly incentivized to misbehave, as you mention, meaning that any competitor trying to compete whilst acting in the public interest will never succeed. If acting in the public interest was profitable, Facebook would do it.

haffi112 6y ago
You're right, it was wishful thinking of me to assume that a competitor would be morally responsible and more profitable than Facebook.