7 ms·
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity. For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accou
by objclxt 6y ago
Facebook uses “Integrity” as a friendly synonym for abuse / spam / illegal activity.
For example, it avoids them actively having to say they have a “fake accounts team” (which would in turn indicate they have a fake accounts problem). Instead it’s part of the “Community Integrity team”.
- nowherebeen 6y agoSo it's a form of doublespeak?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don’t know that I’d call it doublespeak. There’s a lot to be said for defining a job in terms of what it’s trying to produce rather than what it’s trying to fight.
- nowherebeen 6y agoGot it
- yesitstrue2 6y agoIn principle, good point. In practice, it really depends on where your levels of cynicism are at. Crediting FB with wanting to "produce 'integrity'" or even that they're "trying to fight" the myriad of destructive externalities their money-geyser has spewed forth is.. generous.
- tsimionescu 6y agoI think the point is more that they are fighting click-spam and other kinds of advertising fraud, to maintain the integrity of their advertising platform, in the sense in which an antivirus is maintaining the integrity of your system; NOT the sense in which an anti-graft law is maintaining the integrity of a politician.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sorokod 6y agoLike a "Ministry of Peace" for war department?
- victorvation 6y agoWell, "Defence" would, as the intended product is not necessarily peace...
- sorokod 6y agoDefence, offense, it's really a matter of policy.
- andrei_says_ 6y agoAnd “Peace Officer” for police force trained to escalate.
- namdnay 6y agoI think doublespeak is when the two meanings are opposite, no? This sounds more like your standard corporate euphemism
- nowherebeen 6y agoFair enough
- wpietri 6y agoI can't find a definition like that. Wikipedia has it as "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words." Which seems to fit perfectly for Facebook's behavior.
- pertymcpert 6y agoYou’re thinking of Doublethink from 1984.
- namdnay 6y agoAhhhh that's it, thanks!
- SilasX 6y agoI’d say doublespeak would be if “advertising integrity” were the department charged with respecting users’ privacy and (informed) choices, while said dept. executed Facebook’s policies that go very much against these things. But if parent is correct, the role is to enforce things users want (regarding spam/fraud/illegal goods), which matches standard notions of integrity, so it’s not doublespeak.
- herodoturtle 6y agoSo if the Chief of Advertising Integrity leaves the company it might be a good thing? As in they no longer have integrity issues? Gotta love these headlines /s
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoPulled straight out of the Moral Mazes playbook, chapter on “dexterity with symbols.”
- wpietri 6y agoOh, interesting! I hadn't heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mazes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Mazes At this point, its research is nearly 40 years out of date. Is it still worth reading? And are there more up-to-date versions?
- hitekker 6y agoI’m reading it right now And I highly recommend it. Many of its insights remain both relevant and thought-provoking.
- Smaug123 6y agoZvi Mowshowitz talks a lot about it, starting at https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-mazes/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-ma... (main sequence page https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/mazes-sequence-summary/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/mazes-sequence-summa...). I found his sequence valuable.
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoMoral Mazes is one of the rare books I return to and read multiple times. Far from being out of date, 40 years later it is more relevant and the research lines up more directly with corporate behavior than really any other research on this topic written since then. It really is a tremendous book.
- anthuswilliams 6y agoThe latest printing includes an afterword by the author reflecting on the financial crisis, but most of the book is the original text. I recommend this book to everyone with a white-collar job. It's an incredible read. The research is a bit out of date, but the truths still hold. If anything, the age of the research is somewhat helpful. The phenomena these days are more subtle, and many of us work in companies with flatter hierarchies than the 25+ level pyramids the author studied. So the distance in time forces you to reflect on what has changed and whether the results are relevant to you. You will recognize so many of the situations as reminiscent of things you have experienced and haven't been able to put into words. It is 100% worth the read.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- antiterra 6y agoThis is inaccurate, ‘integrity’ appears to just be a generalized term for any sort of content policing or support, including recovering passwords and memorializing accounts of the deceased. Teams have absolutely been identified by specific problem areas, so your reasoning doesn’t hold up. For example, “FNRP” stands for Fake, Not Real Person (which distinguishes from celebrity impersonation etc) per https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebo...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- saagarjha 6y agoI see “inauthentic content” show up a lot.