5 ms·

Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): https://archive.md/As8DH https://archive.md/As8DH

samizdis 5y ago
Also, HN thread with 50 comments about that Roose column: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27834324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27834324
tablespoon 5y ago
> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was amplifying harmful content. Transparency, they said, ultimately took a back seat to image management. I can think of few approaches that are worse than that at rebuilding trust. "Building trust," by ignoring the real issue to focus on perceptions can only work (sometimes) if you can dominate someone's perceptions. Facebook doesn't have the power to do that, especially since it's lost the public's trust and invited more scrutiny. And that leads me to the conclusion that Facebook's executives may not event understand even some basic things about trust, at least with they're in a sociopathic corporate setting.
- dfadsadsf 5y ago
  The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at it. FB can't win here. Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. What it mean for democracy in US long term is a big question.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. It's a kludge. The real problem is broadcast technology becoming too easy to access (in the form of social media). It's reduced transmission friction too much, which has seriously undermined the ability of the "marketplace of ideas" to filter the good from the bad. There's a sweet spot between monopolization and total democratization of broadcast technology, and I don't think we're there anymore. > If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. Come on. You could only say such a thing if you're almost totally ignorant of "press and thought freedom" situation in China. About the only thing you can say China is more permissive of than the US is outright racism, and that's only at the social level (you can still legally be a flaming racist in the US, it's just that many people won't want to associate with you and many will remind you you're full of shit). I'm less familiar with Russia and India, but I highly doubt the situations there will salvage your statement.
    - hammock 5y ago
      This is actually a really insightful way to look at it. I gather you are saying Facebook should not be the one to do the "filtering," but also that it's not ideal for each individual to have to do it themselves. What's the solution?
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > What's the solution? The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be monopolized by one group or another, but they should also not be in the hands of untrained first graders on playgrounds. A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. Bring back classic web forums for communities, and push people who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal websites.
- MengerSponge 5y ago
  Trustworthiness simply isn't in their corporate DNA. Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
- heresie-dabord 5y ago
  This passage is a good summary: "Facebook is not a giant right-wing echo chamber. But it does contain a giant right-wing echo chamber — a kind of AM talk radio built into the heart of Facebook’s news ecosystem, with a hyper-engaged audience of loyal partisans who love liking, sharing and clicking on posts from right-wing pages, many of which have gotten good at serving up Facebook-optimized outrage bait at a consistent clip." And then there is the advertising profit that these enthusiasts of the absurd generate for the corporation. What former US President DJT called, "the golden goose".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fossuser 5y ago
  > "These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was amplifying harmful content." I don't work at FB, but I suspect this is bullshit.
WalterBright 5y ago
Predictably, Roose is only concerned about right wing opinions.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Maybe because they're * Much more widespread * Much more moronic * Much more vicious

Also, HN thread with 50 comments about that Roose column: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27834324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27834324

tablespoon 5y ago

> The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public.... > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was amplifying harmful content. Transparency, they said, ultimately took a back seat to image management. I can think of few approaches that are worse than that at rebuilding trust. "Building trust," by ignoring the real issue to focus on perceptions can only work (sometimes) if you can dominate someone's perceptions. Facebook doesn't have the power to do that, especially since it's lost the public's trust and invited more scrutiny. And that leads me to the conclusion that Facebook's executives may not event understand even some basic things about trust, at least with they're in a sociopathic corporate setting.

dfadsadsf 5y ago
The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at it. FB can't win here. Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. What it mean for democracy in US long term is a big question.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely dangerous when applied to social networks. It's a kludge. The real problem is broadcast technology becoming too easy to access (in the form of social media). It's reduced transmission friction too much, which has seriously undermined the ability of the "marketplace of ideas" to filter the good from the bad. There's a sweet spot between monopolization and total democratization of broadcast technology, and I don't think we're there anymore. > If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. Come on. You could only say such a thing if you're almost totally ignorant of "press and thought freedom" situation in China. About the only thing you can say China is more permissive of than the US is outright racism, and that's only at the social level (you can still legally be a flaming racist in the US, it's just that many people won't want to associate with you and many will remind you you're full of shit). I'm less familiar with Russia and India, but I highly doubt the situations there will salvage your statement.
  - hammock 5y ago
    This is actually a really insightful way to look at it. I gather you are saying Facebook should not be the one to do the "filtering," but also that it's not ideal for each individual to have to do it themselves. What's the solution?
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > What's the solution? The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be monopolized by one group or another, but they should also not be in the hands of untrained first graders on playgrounds. A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the ability to share widely on social media sites: no public posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. Bring back classic web forums for communities, and push people who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal websites.
MengerSponge 5y ago
Trustworthiness simply isn't in their corporate DNA. Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
heresie-dabord 5y ago
This passage is a good summary: "Facebook is not a giant right-wing echo chamber. But it does contain a giant right-wing echo chamber — a kind of AM talk radio built into the heart of Facebook’s news ecosystem, with a hyper-engaged audience of loyal partisans who love liking, sharing and clicking on posts from right-wing pages, many of which have gotten good at serving up Facebook-optimized outrage bait at a consistent clip." And then there is the advertising profit that these enthusiasts of the absurd generate for the corporation. What former US President DJT called, "the golden goose".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fossuser 5y ago
> "These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss internal conversations, said Facebook’s executives were more worried about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was amplifying harmful content." I don't work at FB, but I suspect this is bullshit.

WalterBright 5y ago

Predictably, Roose is only concerned about right wing opinions.

CRConrad 5y ago
Maybe because they're * Much more widespread * Much more moronic * Much more vicious