4 ms·

Here are just a few examples of obviously unethical behavior by Facebook: * Their own internal research shows that Instagram harms 1 in 3 users who are teenage

Here are just a few examples of obviously unethical behavior by Facebook: * Their own internal research shows that Instagram harms 1 in 3 users who are teenaged girls * Lying to companies that paid to advertise on FB about the reach of their ads * Letting advertisers discriminate based on FB users' race and disability status * Letting Russian accounts pay for election ads in 2016 IN RUBLES 1. https://archive.is/egPlc https://archive.is/egPlc 2. https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-for-years-ad-reach-estimates-were-based-on-wrong-data-but-blocked-fixes-over-revenue-impact-per-court-filing https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/18/facebook-knew-for-years-ad... 3. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers... 4. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/358102-franken-blasts-facebook-for-accepting-rubles-for-us-election-ads https://thehill.com/policy/technology/358102-franken-blasts-...

jasonhansel 5y ago
Don't forget aiding the genocide in Myanmar: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- fallingknife 5y ago
  That's a lie. FB did not aid in anything. Google is not responsible for people who use gmail to plan crimes, nor are ISP's responsible for the content of the packets that go over their wires.
  - codysc 5y ago
    So by that logic, if a tv station chooses to broadcast content that propagates racist misinformation and calls for violence, but the station only does it because that's what they algorithmically determine gives them the most viewership, that it's fine?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    Your comparisons are not even close: Email and ISPs are not amplifiers of content. They do not curate messages. Facebook's algorithms absolutely were responsible: they amplified the propaganda that led to deaths. And their money-first-research-second approach at censorship is part of the reason. Rather than turning off the service, they let it run wild. FB is to blame for aiding and abetting.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    The problem with this analogy is that GMail and ISPs treat all traffic equally, where as Facebook and other "engagement"-driven social media use algorithms to prioritize content that generates the most engagement (which often happens to be the most outrageous, offensive or divisive content).
  - Invictus0 5y ago
    And yet they are all responsible for reporting CSAM found on their servers. These platforms are not dumb pipes, the ability is already there to decide what is allowed and what is not.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Facebook was told about it several times and chose to do nothing. Their algorithm amplified hate speech.
beezischillin 5y ago
Remember the video push? When it turned out that they were tweaking and prettying up their engagement stats for advertisers?

jasonhansel 5y ago

Don't forget aiding the genocide in Myanmar: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

fallingknife 5y ago
That's a lie. FB did not aid in anything. Google is not responsible for people who use gmail to plan crimes, nor are ISP's responsible for the content of the packets that go over their wires.
- codysc 5y ago
  So by that logic, if a tv station chooses to broadcast content that propagates racist misinformation and calls for violence, but the station only does it because that's what they algorithmically determine gives them the most viewership, that it's fine?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Your comparisons are not even close: Email and ISPs are not amplifiers of content. They do not curate messages. Facebook's algorithms absolutely were responsible: they amplified the propaganda that led to deaths. And their money-first-research-second approach at censorship is part of the reason. Rather than turning off the service, they let it run wild. FB is to blame for aiding and abetting.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  The problem with this analogy is that GMail and ISPs treat all traffic equally, where as Facebook and other "engagement"-driven social media use algorithms to prioritize content that generates the most engagement (which often happens to be the most outrageous, offensive or divisive content).
- Invictus0 5y ago
  And yet they are all responsible for reporting CSAM found on their servers. These platforms are not dumb pipes, the ability is already there to decide what is allowed and what is not.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Facebook was told about it several times and chose to do nothing. Their algorithm amplified hate speech.

beezischillin 5y ago

Remember the video push? When it turned out that they were tweaking and prettying up their engagement stats for advertisers?