5 ms·

> I do want Facebook harmed So much hate... Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most

> I do want Facebook harmed So much hate... Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected with their friends.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
That's the dismissive rhetoric that got us here. At this point we know that Facebook intentionally manipulates people's moods and behavior... and it's impossible for the average person to be aware of how they're being manipulated, because it's proprietary Facebook data. The algorithm itself is likely so complex that no individual within Facebook understands the full impact of it. They hire researchers to study the output, make the adjustments that positively impact revenue, and generally disregard other harmful side-effects turned up. Instagram today has apologized for pushing extreme dieting content to people with eating disorders (only after they were publicly called out on it). This has been going on for years. Facebook is not a person to be harmed, it's a company that has optimized and automated profitability to the point that it knowingly disregards safety. It's grown to the size where they've admitted that it's impossible for them to moderate effectively... but despite this inability to moderate at scale they still model and display content based on recommendation algorithms that optimize profit. At this point enough evidence has come to light that I'm entirely comfortable calling them an objectively unethical company. There are other social companies that likely follow suit, but at the moment none even begin to approach the scale and reach of Facebook.
- megaman821 5y ago
  Everything around us is designed to manipulate our mood and behavior. * The Oreo's packing looks so inciting but the food offers nearly 0 nutritional value. * The ad for that new game looks so cool but my time would but better spent on almost anything else. * That car is so fast but it would be cheaper and better for the environment to drive a Prius. I would rather have the freedom to choose poorly than have the Government trying to micro-manage all the choices in my life.
  - Steltek 5y ago
    You've listed things that are already regulated, in some cases heavily, by the government. And yes, specific things in those industries have been outright banned by the government. You can't buy Coke with cocaine in it. Ads can't straight up lie to you. You can't buy a car without seatbelts or headlights. If your commercial business is to promote certain content over others, regulating that function is worth a debate, especially if it causes such a disproportionate harm to society. Is algorithmic curation with intent to cause addictive behavior actually protected speech? Or in other words, is the government allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of that curation (not affecting the content)? The US has the broadest protections for speech and if FB fails that test, it's unlikely to hold up anywhere else in the world. The purist would argue that corporations are allowed to do whatever they want and if society runs like lemmings off a cliff, they had it coming. A more moderate view could be that individuals should be guaranteed free speech but not corporations.
    - megaman821 5y ago
      Ok, lets go to the scorecard then. How would you say the governments regulations for the topics of obesity, misleading ads, climate change, car safety? Its a mixed bag. Regulation is necessary but hard. It should be a last resort not the first thing that gets tried. I don't think we are there with Facebook. Maybe some minor regulations, but most people on HN are saying to blow the whole thing up.
      - Steltek 5y ago
        Sheesh, you could have just said "gun control" for crap regulation ;). It's actually a very similar problem to FB, in American eyes. The majority wants regulation of some kind but few can agree on specifics. The only laws that do get passed are totally ineffectual so people are soured on the very concept of gun regulation. There's a cacophony of opinions on here right now. Even the Biden admin's simple encouragement to "fix anti-vax conspiracies yourselves", which is neither regulation nor blowing things up, is being taken out behind the woodshed for being too harsh on free speech, as it carries a vague implied "or else".
  - 5y ago
spywaregorilla 5y ago
And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.
- passivate 5y ago
  If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.
  - rnd0 5y ago
    It does matter, because FB (social media such as Reddit and Twitter as well) create echochambers which amplify crackpot stuff and encourages people to act out in destructive ways (see basically all of the RL anti-mask agitation) in a way that was not happening before social media. Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks. Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over coffee alone versus the amplification which happens over social media IS FUCKING HUGE! (sorry for caps, but seriously -I've lived through both and the difference is fucking huge)
    - passivate 5y ago
      I disagree. We need to bring back personal accountability. "Facebook made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse for violence. Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        So in a different context, the problem is not con artists, its con artist victims? Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.
xeyownt 5y ago
It is not about the suffering that FB is causing to him, but more to people and democracy in general. You can be harmed even if you don't use FB. Safe harbor is acceptable for websites whose social interaction is not the core business or is just a passive add-on, but FB must be held responsible of all the consequences of hate speech and disinformation on their platform because their algorithms are promoting them.
- shreyshnaccount 5y ago
  this. it's never been about free speech or whatever, it's all about the algorithm which exposes you to radical/infuriating ideas with no care about the content of such ideas and with the goal of increasing engagement.
- rnd0 5y ago
  >It is not about the suffering that FB is causing to him, but more to people and democracy in general. You can be harmed even if you don't use FB. Which was proven once and for all on Jan 6th 2021
cybernautique 5y ago
I do not interact with Facebook, the product. Facebook, the company, increasingly has their grimy paws in every networked enterprise. This is a multibillion dollar corporation dead-set on tracking every individual on earth since before their conception. Yes, Facebook (the maniacal stalker, their employees, and their demonic horde of advertisers) has caused that much suffering to me.
haswell 5y ago
As a thought experiment, apply the same sentiment to big tobacco. "Has big tobacco really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't smoke if you're worried about the resulting health problems." > For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected This is where things go south. Rewind to the period of time before we understood just how bad cigarettes are for your health. Now in that period of time, your argument would have been applied as such: "For most people, smoking is just something they do to relax, and it makes them feel good." Except, now, we know that's not true. And similarly, we're only just beginning to understand the true impact of social media.
- janed0pecod 5y ago
  Except social media has a lot of upsides along with all the bad while the tobacco industries have literally none...only downsides (well if you don't count jobs created and all that but that is a low bar since any unethical thing can create job). But ultimately you're not doing a fair comparison here.
  - haswell 5y ago
    It's easy to conclude that now that we understand just how bad tobacco is. But if you rewind a bit, I think people would have said the upsides of smoking were: - It helps you relax and makes you feel good - Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know - Helps you look sophisticated / cool - I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it. The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best. I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.
- 5y ago

micromacrofoot 5y ago

That's the dismissive rhetoric that got us here. At this point we know that Facebook intentionally manipulates people's moods and behavior... and it's impossible for the average person to be aware of how they're being manipulated, because it's proprietary Facebook data. The algorithm itself is likely so complex that no individual within Facebook understands the full impact of it. They hire researchers to study the output, make the adjustments that positively impact revenue, and generally disregard other harmful side-effects turned up. Instagram today has apologized for pushing extreme dieting content to people with eating disorders (only after they were publicly called out on it). This has been going on for years. Facebook is not a person to be harmed, it's a company that has optimized and automated profitability to the point that it knowingly disregards safety. It's grown to the size where they've admitted that it's impossible for them to moderate effectively... but despite this inability to moderate at scale they still model and display content based on recommendation algorithms that optimize profit. At this point enough evidence has come to light that I'm entirely comfortable calling them an objectively unethical company. There are other social companies that likely follow suit, but at the moment none even begin to approach the scale and reach of Facebook.

megaman821 5y ago
Everything around us is designed to manipulate our mood and behavior. * The Oreo's packing looks so inciting but the food offers nearly 0 nutritional value. * The ad for that new game looks so cool but my time would but better spent on almost anything else. * That car is so fast but it would be cheaper and better for the environment to drive a Prius. I would rather have the freedom to choose poorly than have the Government trying to micro-manage all the choices in my life.
- Steltek 5y ago
  You've listed things that are already regulated, in some cases heavily, by the government. And yes, specific things in those industries have been outright banned by the government. You can't buy Coke with cocaine in it. Ads can't straight up lie to you. You can't buy a car without seatbelts or headlights. If your commercial business is to promote certain content over others, regulating that function is worth a debate, especially if it causes such a disproportionate harm to society. Is algorithmic curation with intent to cause addictive behavior actually protected speech? Or in other words, is the government allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of that curation (not affecting the content)? The US has the broadest protections for speech and if FB fails that test, it's unlikely to hold up anywhere else in the world. The purist would argue that corporations are allowed to do whatever they want and if society runs like lemmings off a cliff, they had it coming. A more moderate view could be that individuals should be guaranteed free speech but not corporations.
  - megaman821 5y ago
    Ok, lets go to the scorecard then. How would you say the governments regulations for the topics of obesity, misleading ads, climate change, car safety? Its a mixed bag. Regulation is necessary but hard. It should be a last resort not the first thing that gets tried. I don't think we are there with Facebook. Maybe some minor regulations, but most people on HN are saying to blow the whole thing up.
    - Steltek 5y ago
      Sheesh, you could have just said "gun control" for crap regulation ;). It's actually a very similar problem to FB, in American eyes. The majority wants regulation of some kind but few can agree on specifics. The only laws that do get passed are totally ineffectual so people are soured on the very concept of gun regulation. There's a cacophony of opinions on here right now. Even the Biden admin's simple encouragement to "fix anti-vax conspiracies yourselves", which is neither regulation nor blowing things up, is being taken out behind the woodshed for being too harsh on free speech, as it carries a vague implied "or else".
- 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago

And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.

passivate 5y ago
If somebody is going to believe in crackpot stuff, then it doesn't matter who or what the source is. I don't agree with the idea that we need to coddle the masses.
- rnd0 5y ago
  It does matter, because FB (social media such as Reddit and Twitter as well) create echochambers which amplify crackpot stuff and encourages people to act out in destructive ways (see basically all of the RL anti-mask agitation) in a way that was not happening before social media. Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks. Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over coffee alone versus the amplification which happens over social media IS FUCKING HUGE! (sorry for caps, but seriously -I've lived through both and the difference is fucking huge)
  - passivate 5y ago
    I disagree. We need to bring back personal accountability. "Facebook made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse for violence. Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      So in a different context, the problem is not con artists, its con artist victims? Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.

xeyownt 5y ago

It is not about the suffering that FB is causing to him, but more to people and democracy in general. You can be harmed even if you don't use FB. Safe harbor is acceptable for websites whose social interaction is not the core business or is just a passive add-on, but FB must be held responsible of all the consequences of hate speech and disinformation on their platform because their algorithms are promoting them.

shreyshnaccount 5y ago
this. it's never been about free speech or whatever, it's all about the algorithm which exposes you to radical/infuriating ideas with no care about the content of such ideas and with the goal of increasing engagement.
rnd0 5y ago
>It is not about the suffering that FB is causing to him, but more to people and democracy in general. You can be harmed even if you don't use FB. Which was proven once and for all on Jan 6th 2021

cybernautique 5y ago

I do not interact with Facebook, the product. Facebook, the company, increasingly has their grimy paws in every networked enterprise. This is a multibillion dollar corporation dead-set on tracking every individual on earth since before their conception. Yes, Facebook (the maniacal stalker, their employees, and their demonic horde of advertisers) has caused that much suffering to me.

haswell 5y ago

As a thought experiment, apply the same sentiment to big tobacco. "Has big tobacco really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't smoke if you're worried about the resulting health problems." > For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected This is where things go south. Rewind to the period of time before we understood just how bad cigarettes are for your health. Now in that period of time, your argument would have been applied as such: "For most people, smoking is just something they do to relax, and it makes them feel good." Except, now, we know that's not true. And similarly, we're only just beginning to understand the true impact of social media.

janed0pecod 5y ago
Except social media has a lot of upsides along with all the bad while the tobacco industries have literally none...only downsides (well if you don't count jobs created and all that but that is a low bar since any unethical thing can create job). But ultimately you're not doing a fair comparison here.
- haswell 5y ago
  It's easy to conclude that now that we understand just how bad tobacco is. But if you rewind a bit, I think people would have said the upsides of smoking were: - It helps you relax and makes you feel good - Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know - Helps you look sophisticated / cool - I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it. The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best. I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.
5y ago