4 ms·

It's absolutely automated, but it begs the question, should it be allowed to be, particularly when dealing with minors? It seems crazy this case slipped through

It's absolutely automated, but it begs the question, should it be allowed to be, particularly when dealing with minors? It seems crazy this case slipped through to exist when Facebook has been around for so long.

t-writescode 5y ago
The associated comments that are downvoted seem to imply that Facebook intended for this to happen and it wasn't just automation and bureaucracy. Should it be stopped? If it violates the law, absolutely; but, we should recognize it for what it is, not some nefarious, evil plot to harm the young of multiple nations.
- sodality2 5y ago
  True, it's not malicious intent; if facebook could squeeze every cent out of their platform while advertising scented candles, they certainly would. It's the indifference that matters though.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Not sure intent is relevant. Does intent matter when the system is so huge and no single person probably understands or directs it? The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
    - sodality2 5y ago
      The ultimate issue is that Facebook is incentivized to allow more ads on the platform. Their ad system does need to be fixed, I agree. Intent doesn't matter much, I agree; it's the final result, which is that they are advertising ads that make them more money, which is more commonly immoral things like gambling to minors, etc. Like I said, it's the fact that Facebook largely doesn't care where it goes as long as they make money (as can be seen by their ad systems) that is more telling than their intent.
    - t-writescode 5y ago
      I don't buy that philosophy for short-lived things that haven't had a chance to be acted upon. If a system is in place and continues to do a thing after concerns are brought up, then absolutely, that's an argument that can be made; but, for each new class of mistake a system makes, you can't just say that that's what it was designed to do. It's unfair to the designers, the people in the know, etc. You'll never win people over by telling them the thing they attempted to create, with many years of sweat and tears, was _designed_ to do something nefarious if it wasn't. If they don't change after evidence to the contrary, then this can be brought up; but before then, it's inappropriate.
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        I’d agree if this was the first time bad behavior was uncovered. And it’s not just FB, Silicon Valley seems to have a big problem with big systems that, like Frankenstein, escaped the intent of their creators and fell into this algorithmic evil maximization trap.
        t-writescode 5y ago
        This is probably the first time it's being reported in a meaningful way that their system enables targeting children for illegal products (presuming vaping is illegal in Australia or the United States for those under 18, which is a separate question, since the only one that passed looked like a vaping product if I understand what I saw in the article)
  - xbar 5y ago
    Some ads can never be posted on Facebook (prostitution, child pornography, murder for hire, firearms). Facebook is capable of filtering ads. It is mission critical for them to do so. It is the thing they are best at in the history of the known universe: showing the right ad for maximum value and not showing ads that are not of maximum value. These ads are posted. This is intent.
    - Nasrudith 5y ago
      Notice something about those ads excluded? They are simple red line unconditional "no's". Add in judgement calls and there will be fuck-ups. Of course lack of judgement can lead to its own class of fuck ups like offending people for "reject ads for military recruiting because they showed a gun in them".
    - sodality2 5y ago
      By intent, I mean facebook does not choose specifically immoral things and it just happens to be super profitable; they show whatever is profitable, which happens to be immoral things. I don't mean "they don't mean to show bad ads" because they do, I mean "they would just as quickly choose another category if it meant more profits".
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >but, we should recognize it for what it is, not some nefarious, evil plot to harm the young of multiple nations. no, it's much worse. Nefarious evil plotters at least need to sleep and eat and eventually they might grow tired of their evil scheming. This is much more miserable, this is simply the invisible hand doing its job and harming the young of multiple nations with a ruthless efficiency and precision that makes most comic super-villains look sloppy in comparison
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    While possibly true, we need to attack it from that angle. If you look at a person and go "you are evil!!" you win no one. If you go to someone and say "I'm seeing some behavior in the system you designed. Was this intended? It's harming people, can we fix it?" you recognize them as human and don't assume harmful intent. Then, the both of you can work to solve the problem. If you go at it the other way, you're attacking _them_ and they'll defend by arguing that it's an emergent behavior of the algorithm and there's no evil intended.
    - cool_dude85 5y ago
      Do you give those same backpats, kind words and smooches to Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies who spent decades advertising to kids and teens? Or just the company who you may find yourself applying for a job with?
      - t-writescode 5y ago
        You're asking the wrong and a dishonest question. I would give the same back pats to a newspaper company, when advertising tobacco at all was legal, if they let some advertisements slip through and get put on pages closer to articles meant for young people than they thought, or if they let some research papers that was co-funded by a tobacco company through to their write-ups. Facebook is not the company making the ads, they're the ones approving the ads. There is a _meaningful_ difference.
- adjkant 5y ago
  While not intended, at Facebook's age and scale, I think gross negligence is a fair assessment. That said, it seems like upthread there's questions on the validity of the report methodology, so probably standby on any diagnosis here.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    > I think gross negligence is a fair assessment. I'll buy this, for sure. With a lot of things that are built, I think the collective of engineers may need to be more thoughtful about 2nd and 3rd order effects from the decisions that are being made or not made. Emergent Systems are absolutely a thing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

t-writescode 5y ago

The associated comments that are downvoted seem to imply that Facebook intended for this to happen and it wasn't just automation and bureaucracy. Should it be stopped? If it violates the law, absolutely; but, we should recognize it for what it is, not some nefarious, evil plot to harm the young of multiple nations.

sodality2 5y ago
True, it's not malicious intent; if facebook could squeeze every cent out of their platform while advertising scented candles, they certainly would. It's the indifference that matters though.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Not sure intent is relevant. Does intent matter when the system is so huge and no single person probably understands or directs it? The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
  - sodality2 5y ago
    The ultimate issue is that Facebook is incentivized to allow more ads on the platform. Their ad system does need to be fixed, I agree. Intent doesn't matter much, I agree; it's the final result, which is that they are advertising ads that make them more money, which is more commonly immoral things like gambling to minors, etc. Like I said, it's the fact that Facebook largely doesn't care where it goes as long as they make money (as can be seen by their ad systems) that is more telling than their intent.
  - t-writescode 5y ago
    I don't buy that philosophy for short-lived things that haven't had a chance to be acted upon. If a system is in place and continues to do a thing after concerns are brought up, then absolutely, that's an argument that can be made; but, for each new class of mistake a system makes, you can't just say that that's what it was designed to do. It's unfair to the designers, the people in the know, etc. You'll never win people over by telling them the thing they attempted to create, with many years of sweat and tears, was _designed_ to do something nefarious if it wasn't. If they don't change after evidence to the contrary, then this can be brought up; but before then, it's inappropriate.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      I’d agree if this was the first time bad behavior was uncovered. And it’s not just FB, Silicon Valley seems to have a big problem with big systems that, like Frankenstein, escaped the intent of their creators and fell into this algorithmic evil maximization trap.
      - t-writescode 5y ago
        This is probably the first time it's being reported in a meaningful way that their system enables targeting children for illegal products (presuming vaping is illegal in Australia or the United States for those under 18, which is a separate question, since the only one that passed looked like a vaping product if I understand what I saw in the article)
- xbar 5y ago
  Some ads can never be posted on Facebook (prostitution, child pornography, murder for hire, firearms). Facebook is capable of filtering ads. It is mission critical for them to do so. It is the thing they are best at in the history of the known universe: showing the right ad for maximum value and not showing ads that are not of maximum value. These ads are posted. This is intent.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Notice something about those ads excluded? They are simple red line unconditional "no's". Add in judgement calls and there will be fuck-ups. Of course lack of judgement can lead to its own class of fuck ups like offending people for "reject ads for military recruiting because they showed a gun in them".
  - sodality2 5y ago
    By intent, I mean facebook does not choose specifically immoral things and it just happens to be super profitable; they show whatever is profitable, which happens to be immoral things. I don't mean "they don't mean to show bad ads" because they do, I mean "they would just as quickly choose another category if it meant more profits".
Barrin92 5y ago
>but, we should recognize it for what it is, not some nefarious, evil plot to harm the young of multiple nations. no, it's much worse. Nefarious evil plotters at least need to sleep and eat and eventually they might grow tired of their evil scheming. This is much more miserable, this is simply the invisible hand doing its job and harming the young of multiple nations with a ruthless efficiency and precision that makes most comic super-villains look sloppy in comparison
- t-writescode 5y ago
  While possibly true, we need to attack it from that angle. If you look at a person and go "you are evil!!" you win no one. If you go to someone and say "I'm seeing some behavior in the system you designed. Was this intended? It's harming people, can we fix it?" you recognize them as human and don't assume harmful intent. Then, the both of you can work to solve the problem. If you go at it the other way, you're attacking _them_ and they'll defend by arguing that it's an emergent behavior of the algorithm and there's no evil intended.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    Do you give those same backpats, kind words and smooches to Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies who spent decades advertising to kids and teens? Or just the company who you may find yourself applying for a job with?
    - t-writescode 5y ago
      You're asking the wrong and a dishonest question. I would give the same back pats to a newspaper company, when advertising tobacco at all was legal, if they let some advertisements slip through and get put on pages closer to articles meant for young people than they thought, or if they let some research papers that was co-funded by a tobacco company through to their write-ups. Facebook is not the company making the ads, they're the ones approving the ads. There is a _meaningful_ difference.
adjkant 5y ago
While not intended, at Facebook's age and scale, I think gross negligence is a fair assessment. That said, it seems like upthread there's questions on the validity of the report methodology, so probably standby on any diagnosis here.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  > I think gross negligence is a fair assessment. I'll buy this, for sure. With a lot of things that are built, I think the collective of engineers may need to be more thoughtful about 2nd and 3rd order effects from the decisions that are being made or not made. Emergent Systems are absolutely a thing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]