8 ms·

It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if

by cs702 5y ago

It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get people to see something if their wealth, status, and self-worth depend upon not seeing it.

ellyagg 5y ago
I think it's more that city folk truly, sincerely, earnestly believe country folk are evil, and the fact that Facebook is not programmatically and automatically squashing country folk speech just because city folk want them to annoys city folk.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  I'm "country folk" and have never experienced this kind of attitude from "city folk" on the basis of my address. Then again, I do truly, sincerely, earnestly believe the enablers like Fox News, the GOP, et cetera are evil. The people who listen to them aren't evil, just deceived.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Indeed. So-called "country folk" are a serious minority, and if the right in the US had to rely on rural voters exclusively for support they'd never win an election. For sure, there's a right wing voting block that might see itself as "salt of the earth" or "country folk" or "common sense"; but it's just an ideological package held together with shoestring and old gum made out of old school nativism, pro-life stuff, and an appeal to a sense of lost opportunity. And I grew up in rural Alberta, Canada, oil country heartland of "country folk" in Canada, the Texas of Canada, and I live rural now, too. It's never been the case that all "country folk" vote right or hold right wing opinions, even if a sizable chunk do. I do think "city folk" hold some pretty stereotyped views of rural life though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
war1025 5y ago
It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Those actual lies are the right-wing position now. If you attack lies, right-wingers will say you are attacking them.
    - throwitaway1235 5y ago
      You call opinions you disagree with lies.
      - pault 5y ago
        Incidents of voter fraud, and side effects from vaccines, etc are quantifiable, therefore not subject to opinion. Interpretation yes, but interpretation must be supported by evidence.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.
        5y ago
benjaminjosephw 5y ago
That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.
- cs702 5y ago
  It's not stupidity, I think, but wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit."
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    It's what is called "ideology" in critical theory & Marxism. Thought shaped by way of class position; aka people "think with their stomachs." Not always, but on the whole, the majority of people will adopt the world view that keeps them fed/wealthy/powerful/happy.
- irrational 5y ago
  I'd say more pride than malice.
- r00fus 5y ago
  Hanlon's Razor has a counter law, Gray's Law (or Clark's Law): "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". If responsible people are blind to the problem, and claim incompetence, they're probably profiting from it.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. That's hard to believe when they've responded to international catastrophes that they had a role in like this[1], and admitted this themselves[2]: > Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
- cs702 5y ago
  My perception is that they think they can "fix" these horrifying problems with cleverer software, better policies, and new procedures without negatively altering or impacting the giant gush of money that flows into the company every day.
  - seppin 5y ago
    They can't. There is a direct line between the coercive brand of discourse they promote and higher engagement/ad revenue.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen Truly? Sincerely? Earnestly? All that? I must be a lot more cynical than you. I think they absolutely know the score. I think they sincerely would rather not be painted with the brush of accountability, would prefer deniability.
jonas21 5y ago
> They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. The problem is that half of those outsiders clearly see the evil as Facebook censoring too much. And the other half clearly see the evil as Facebook censoring too little.
- civilized 5y ago
  Surely we can all agree that Facebook should do what outsiders tell it to do, regardless of whether different groups of outsiders want contradictory things.

by cs702 5y ago

ellyagg 5y ago

I think it's more that city folk truly, sincerely, earnestly believe country folk are evil, and the fact that Facebook is not programmatically and automatically squashing country folk speech just because city folk want them to annoys city folk.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
eggsmediumrare 5y ago
I'm "country folk" and have never experienced this kind of attitude from "city folk" on the basis of my address. Then again, I do truly, sincerely, earnestly believe the enablers like Fox News, the GOP, et cetera are evil. The people who listen to them aren't evil, just deceived.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Indeed. So-called "country folk" are a serious minority, and if the right in the US had to rely on rural voters exclusively for support they'd never win an election. For sure, there's a right wing voting block that might see itself as "salt of the earth" or "country folk" or "common sense"; but it's just an ideological package held together with shoestring and old gum made out of old school nativism, pro-life stuff, and an appeal to a sense of lost opportunity. And I grew up in rural Alberta, Canada, oil country heartland of "country folk" in Canada, the Texas of Canada, and I live rural now, too. It's never been the case that all "country folk" vote right or hold right wing opinions, even if a sizable chunk do. I do think "city folk" hold some pretty stereotyped views of rural life though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

war1025 5y ago

It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the room. The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready audience when they are allowed to compete.

eggsmediumrare 5y ago
No one is talking about censoring arguments about what constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the government is spending too much, or what rights states should have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Those actual lies are the right-wing position now. If you attack lies, right-wingers will say you are attacking them.
  - throwitaway1235 5y ago
    You call opinions you disagree with lies.
    - pault 5y ago
      Incidents of voter fraud, and side effects from vaccines, etc are quantifiable, therefore not subject to opinion. Interpretation yes, but interpretation must be supported by evidence.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out is called attacking political opinions. It's not. It's lies.
      - 5y ago

benjaminjosephw 5y ago

That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.

cs702 5y ago
It's not stupidity, I think, but wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated by profit."
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  It's what is called "ideology" in critical theory & Marxism. Thought shaped by way of class position; aka people "think with their stomachs." Not always, but on the whole, the majority of people will adopt the world view that keeps them fed/wealthy/powerful/happy.
irrational 5y ago
I'd say more pride than malice.
r00fus 5y ago
Hanlon's Razor has a counter law, Gray's Law (or Clark's Law): "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". If responsible people are blind to the problem, and claim incompetence, they're probably profiting from it.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and great management. That's hard to believe when they've responded to international catastrophes that they had a role in like this[1], and admitted this themselves[2]: > Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in Myanmar [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

cs702 5y ago
My perception is that they think they can "fix" these horrifying problems with cleverer software, better policies, and new procedures without negatively altering or impacting the giant gush of money that flows into the company every day.
- seppin 5y ago
  They can't. There is a direct line between the coercive brand of discourse they promote and higher engagement/ad revenue.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

> they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to be seen Truly? Sincerely? Earnestly? All that? I must be a lot more cynical than you. I think they absolutely know the score. I think they sincerely would rather not be painted with the brush of accountability, would prefer deniability.

jonas21 5y ago

> They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly see. The problem is that half of those outsiders clearly see the evil as Facebook censoring too much. And the other half clearly see the evil as Facebook censoring too little.

civilized 5y ago
Surely we can all agree that Facebook should do what outsiders tell it to do, regardless of whether different groups of outsiders want contradictory things.