5 ms·

This is exactly the point Frances Haugen is making, and it's why this is so different and so much more significant than the other Facebook scandals and leaks in

This is exactly the point Frances Haugen is making, and it's why this is so different and so much more significant than the other Facebook scandals and leaks in the past. Haugen repeated over and over again her testimony today that Facebook is full of smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people, and that she has great empathy for them, even Mark Zuckerberg. Her point is that they have created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes. It is not about good and evil people, it is about the incentives. It's exactly as you are saying. That's why she is not advocating to punish Facebook for being evil, but rather to force Facebook to reveal and permit research so we can understand the system and fix it, because Facebook is too deeply trapped in its own tangle of incentives to fix itself. In this I think she is absolutely correct.

angelzen 5y ago
"Facebook has created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes" Exactly right. The solution baffles me. "Force Facebook to reveal and permit research so we understand the system and fix it" Basically keep the harmful system in place, but pass the reins to an unspecified cabal hiding under the innocuous word "we". Hard pass.
- astronautjones 5y ago
  end algorithmic recommendations
  - SamBam 5y ago
    Ah yes. Get rid of Pandora and GoodReads because what they're doing has basically the outcome.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Maybe subject algorithmic feeds to public oversight.
      - fallingknife 5y ago
        It is subject to public oversight. It's designed to give the public exactly what they want.
        tehjoker 5y ago
        That's like saying a slot machine is regulated by the gambling addict.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Granularity matters. Social feed granularity is small enough that an algorithm, even primitive, can sketch an arbitrary narrative on the spot by juxtaposing unrelated items, akin to a ransom note built from letters cut off from different publications. Pandora and especially GoodReads have large granularity, making it difficult to employ in the same manner.
    - sixstringtheory 5y ago
      Very different outcomes I'd say. Are friends and family getting torn apart on those platforms? Do they need armies of moderators to remove abuse material or fact-check posts? (I'm sure there's some, but not on the same scale as Facebook.) This is the first I've ever heard such a thing suggested, and certainly haven't observed it personally.
      - SamBam 5y ago
        I was being facetious. GP advocating banning all recommendation engines.
  - jensensbutton 5y ago
    TikTok wouldn't be allowed to exist.
- djabatt 5y ago
  The "lean in" people and incentives have made society suffer for profit. Perhaps we can define a better set of incentives that reward companies of people building products.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    We can. It's called pay directly for the services you use. It is a time-honored system where you give providers money in exchange for goods and services. In response, their incentive is to keep you happy and healthy and prosperous so you can continue to give them money.
    - ehnto 5y ago
      Which will never happen. That takes customer impetus, it's not there. People don't understand the cost of the free products they use, they are unlikely to switch. So what ways would influence your outcome to actually happen? Because I think it would be the right way to run software platforms as well, I just don't see a pathway there that isn't heavy handed. I would be for regulating the advertising industry, since I feel it is the root of all this. None of the unethical software magnates would exist if not for the advertising dollars pouring through the door thanks to the ad-tech apparatuses they have built, and the poor incentives that creates. But that regulation is challenging and unlikely too.
      - imgabe 5y ago
        I think a freemium model would be better. You should have to pay for having a large number of followers/friends past a certain point. For example, maybe an account with 1,000 friends is free. Up to 10,000: $5 / month, up to 100,000 $50/month, and so on. If you're Kim Kardashian with 250 million followers and you're making millions of dollars hawking skin cream or whatever, you can afford to pay a few thousand dollars a month to reach your large, valuable audience. This way, the content creators can sell ads if they want. The platform doesn't sell ads. Users only see ads if they follow a creator who has sponsors. It's up to that creator to make their content worthwhile enough for people to choose to follow them in spite of the ads. A platform should be like a company that sells TV broadcast towers. They give people a way to reach an audience. What that content creator does with their audience is up to them. Maybe they could charge a subscription. Maybe they get sponsors. If it's a large non-profit or government organization, maybe they pay at a lower rate or get to use it for free.
- alecthomas 5y ago
  It's more nuanced than this. You can watch her full testimony here if you're actually interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw
sayonaraman 5y ago
How is giving access to user data for "research" is better than that whole data privacy scandal with Cambridge Analytica. these days research comes with a set of politically charged assumptions, for example the definitions of "hate speech" and "misinformation" are different based on which political camp you ask So giving access to Cambridge Analytica is bad but to some other partisan "think tank" is fine? who would make those decisions?
- moron4hire 5y ago
  The government has systems in place for doing this. For example, the SBA has tons of data about small businesses across the country. You can get access to it... IF you are part of a research institution and go directly to their dedicated research facility so that you can't exfiltrate the data. Such a model is open, just not free. It would probably be the right model for this issue.
gorwell 5y ago
It may be that facebook can't fix itself, but what makes anyone think an even larger and more powerful organization is the answer and won't itself succumb to its own system of incentives? She is pushing for the equivalent of The Ministry of Truth. Relevant testimony here: https://twitter.com/gillibrandny/status/1445451624005001217 https://twitter.com/gillibrandny/status/1445451624005001217 Remember, this is the system of incentives that had us spend 20 disastrous years in Afghanistan, across both parties. And has failed to deal with climate change. And healthcare. And education. And wealth inequality. And housing. And... Siri, what's the definition of insane?
- etchalon 5y ago
  Nothing in her testimony referenced a "Ministry of Truth" or any type of censorship. She specifically spoke against "content-based" solutions.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    It's right there in the link OP provided. Senator Gillibrand: "We need a Data Protection Agency." Frances Haugen: "And there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this"
    - etchalon 5y ago
      In what universe is "Data Protection" a "Ministry of Truth"?
      - pcmoney 5y ago
        This one. Just give it time.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        You realize the whole point of it being called the "Ministry of Truth" was that the name didn't reflect what it actually did, right?
luckydata 5y ago
By the way let's give a name to that system, it's called "PSC". Google it. It's the most absurd and ineffective performance management system I've ever witnessed. It creates a Hunger Games mentality within teams and makes doing anything that actually matters virtually impossible, generating an infinite sequence of half assed 6 months projects that get systematically abandoned as soon as the people responsible manage to get promoted or switch teams.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > By the way let's give a name to that system, it's called "PSC". Google it. Unless you mean the Florida Public Service Commission, PSC Motorsports, or Pensacola State College you're going to have to be more specific.
  - ayewo 5y ago
    “PSC stands for Performance Summary Cycle at Facebook“ At least according to https://www.thelayoff.com/t/13z18mcE https://www.thelayoff.com/t/13z18mcE when I searched for “facebook psc”.
    - luckydata 5y ago
      you are correct!
- Yoric 5y ago
  The descriptions of PSC I've seen don't look that bad. Do you have details about what's wrong with it?
- subsaharancoder 5y ago
  > It creates a Hunger Games mentality within teams and makes doing anything that actually matters virtually impossible, generating an infinite sequence of half assed 6 months projects that get systematically abandoned as soon as the people responsible manage to get promoted or switch teams. That's a bit of an over dramatization, PSC is just peer feedback, and is very similar to Perf reviews at Google as well as other large SV tech companies. Having done both I didn't experience this "Hunger Games mentality" you described.
pmp11pmp 5y ago
Incidentally, that's also a good explanation of things that appear to be conspiracies.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
> they have created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes If the people inside are "smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people", they would have tried to work around the incentive, influence them, denounce them, or quit. It rarely happened. Most of the time, the just take the money, and goes with the flow.
- Yoric 5y ago
  A long time ago, I worked in a startup full of smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people. Of course, there was also a CEO who was a ruthless manipulator and managed to make everyone believe that they were working for the greater good. In truth, in the course of lining his pockets, he was in the process of destroying several employees and former employees. Getting past the illusion was hard. Taking a stand against said CEO while nobody else was aware of the problem? Really, really hard. Now, instead of a few dozen employees, Facebook has tens of thousands. I assume that all of them are subject to permanent propaganda, as in many tech companies, and that the semi-official word is that they are being misunderstood by the rest of the world, because of course they are doing the right thing but the problem is harder than people think (well, that last part is true, at least). I suspect that it's even harder to go against the flow.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Yes, that's what Zuckerburg said.

angelzen 5y ago

"Facebook has created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes" Exactly right. The solution baffles me. "Force Facebook to reveal and permit research so we understand the system and fix it" Basically keep the harmful system in place, but pass the reins to an unspecified cabal hiding under the innocuous word "we". Hard pass.

astronautjones 5y ago
end algorithmic recommendations
- SamBam 5y ago
  Ah yes. Get rid of Pandora and GoodReads because what they're doing has basically the outcome.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Maybe subject algorithmic feeds to public oversight.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      It is subject to public oversight. It's designed to give the public exactly what they want.
      - tehjoker 5y ago
        That's like saying a slot machine is regulated by the gambling addict.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Granularity matters. Social feed granularity is small enough that an algorithm, even primitive, can sketch an arbitrary narrative on the spot by juxtaposing unrelated items, akin to a ransom note built from letters cut off from different publications. Pandora and especially GoodReads have large granularity, making it difficult to employ in the same manner.
  - sixstringtheory 5y ago
    Very different outcomes I'd say. Are friends and family getting torn apart on those platforms? Do they need armies of moderators to remove abuse material or fact-check posts? (I'm sure there's some, but not on the same scale as Facebook.) This is the first I've ever heard such a thing suggested, and certainly haven't observed it personally.
    - SamBam 5y ago
      I was being facetious. GP advocating banning all recommendation engines.
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  TikTok wouldn't be allowed to exist.
djabatt 5y ago
The "lean in" people and incentives have made society suffer for profit. Perhaps we can define a better set of incentives that reward companies of people building products.
- imgabe 5y ago
  We can. It's called pay directly for the services you use. It is a time-honored system where you give providers money in exchange for goods and services. In response, their incentive is to keep you happy and healthy and prosperous so you can continue to give them money.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Which will never happen. That takes customer impetus, it's not there. People don't understand the cost of the free products they use, they are unlikely to switch. So what ways would influence your outcome to actually happen? Because I think it would be the right way to run software platforms as well, I just don't see a pathway there that isn't heavy handed. I would be for regulating the advertising industry, since I feel it is the root of all this. None of the unethical software magnates would exist if not for the advertising dollars pouring through the door thanks to the ad-tech apparatuses they have built, and the poor incentives that creates. But that regulation is challenging and unlikely too.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      I think a freemium model would be better. You should have to pay for having a large number of followers/friends past a certain point. For example, maybe an account with 1,000 friends is free. Up to 10,000: $5 / month, up to 100,000 $50/month, and so on. If you're Kim Kardashian with 250 million followers and you're making millions of dollars hawking skin cream or whatever, you can afford to pay a few thousand dollars a month to reach your large, valuable audience. This way, the content creators can sell ads if they want. The platform doesn't sell ads. Users only see ads if they follow a creator who has sponsors. It's up to that creator to make their content worthwhile enough for people to choose to follow them in spite of the ads. A platform should be like a company that sells TV broadcast towers. They give people a way to reach an audience. What that content creator does with their audience is up to them. Maybe they could charge a subscription. Maybe they get sponsors. If it's a large non-profit or government organization, maybe they pay at a lower rate or get to use it for free.
alecthomas 5y ago
It's more nuanced than this. You can watch her full testimony here if you're actually interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnpVQnv5Cw

sayonaraman 5y ago

How is giving access to user data for "research" is better than that whole data privacy scandal with Cambridge Analytica. these days research comes with a set of politically charged assumptions, for example the definitions of "hate speech" and "misinformation" are different based on which political camp you ask So giving access to Cambridge Analytica is bad but to some other partisan "think tank" is fine? who would make those decisions?

moron4hire 5y ago
The government has systems in place for doing this. For example, the SBA has tons of data about small businesses across the country. You can get access to it... IF you are part of a research institution and go directly to their dedicated research facility so that you can't exfiltrate the data. Such a model is open, just not free. It would probably be the right model for this issue.

gorwell 5y ago

It may be that facebook can't fix itself, but what makes anyone think an even larger and more powerful organization is the answer and won't itself succumb to its own system of incentives? She is pushing for the equivalent of The Ministry of Truth. Relevant testimony here: https://twitter.com/gillibrandny/status/1445451624005001217 https://twitter.com/gillibrandny/status/1445451624005001217 Remember, this is the system of incentives that had us spend 20 disastrous years in Afghanistan, across both parties. And has failed to deal with climate change. And healthcare. And education. And wealth inequality. And housing. And... Siri, what's the definition of insane?

etchalon 5y ago
Nothing in her testimony referenced a "Ministry of Truth" or any type of censorship. She specifically spoke against "content-based" solutions.
- angelzen 5y ago
  It's right there in the link OP provided. Senator Gillibrand: "We need a Data Protection Agency." Frances Haugen: "And there needs to be a regulatory home where someone like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this"
  - etchalon 5y ago
    In what universe is "Data Protection" a "Ministry of Truth"?
    - pcmoney 5y ago
      This one. Just give it time.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      You realize the whole point of it being called the "Ministry of Truth" was that the name didn't reflect what it actually did, right?

luckydata 5y ago

By the way let's give a name to that system, it's called "PSC". Google it. It's the most absurd and ineffective performance management system I've ever witnessed. It creates a Hunger Games mentality within teams and makes doing anything that actually matters virtually impossible, generating an infinite sequence of half assed 6 months projects that get systematically abandoned as soon as the people responsible manage to get promoted or switch teams.

tablespoon 5y ago
> By the way let's give a name to that system, it's called "PSC". Google it. Unless you mean the Florida Public Service Commission, PSC Motorsports, or Pensacola State College you're going to have to be more specific.
- ayewo 5y ago
  “PSC stands for Performance Summary Cycle at Facebook“ At least according to https://www.thelayoff.com/t/13z18mcE https://www.thelayoff.com/t/13z18mcE when I searched for “facebook psc”.
  - luckydata 5y ago
    you are correct!
Yoric 5y ago
The descriptions of PSC I've seen don't look that bad. Do you have details about what's wrong with it?
subsaharancoder 5y ago
> It creates a Hunger Games mentality within teams and makes doing anything that actually matters virtually impossible, generating an infinite sequence of half assed 6 months projects that get systematically abandoned as soon as the people responsible manage to get promoted or switch teams. That's a bit of an over dramatization, PSC is just peer feedback, and is very similar to Perf reviews at Google as well as other large SV tech companies. Having done both I didn't experience this "Hunger Games mentality" you described.

pmp11pmp 5y ago

Incidentally, that's also a good explanation of things that appear to be conspiracies.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

> they have created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes If the people inside are "smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people", they would have tried to work around the incentive, influence them, denounce them, or quit. It rarely happened. Most of the time, the just take the money, and goes with the flow.

Yoric 5y ago
A long time ago, I worked in a startup full of smart, thoughtful, kind, well-intentioned people. Of course, there was also a CEO who was a ruthless manipulator and managed to make everyone believe that they were working for the greater good. In truth, in the course of lining his pockets, he was in the process of destroying several employees and former employees. Getting past the illusion was hard. Taking a stand against said CEO while nobody else was aware of the problem? Really, really hard. Now, instead of a few dozen employees, Facebook has tens of thousands. I assume that all of them are subject to permanent propaganda, as in many tech companies, and that the semi-official word is that they are being misunderstood by the rest of the world, because of course they are doing the right thing but the problem is harder than people think (well, that last part is true, at least). I suspect that it's even harder to go against the flow.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  Yes, that's what Zuckerburg said.