4 ms·

How so? He asserted several apparently factual claims that would basically undermine or make irrelevant most of the commentary in this thread, for example: - S

How so? He asserted several apparently factual claims that would basically undermine or make irrelevant most of the commentary in this thread, for example: - Social media can't cause "polarization" because the measurements of that are going down in most of the world, except the USA. But social media is heavily used everywhere. - It makes no sense to claim an organization doesn't care about X when it heavily funds research into X. - If you react to a company researching the harms of its products by leaking everything and publicly accusing the company of being evil, other companies will simply not do research into the harms of its own products. The second two are just logic. The first would benefit from a citation but I'll take his word for it.

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
Ah, great question. The pattern I'm pointing to is a little subtle. I think at this point it pays to be extremely sceptical of Zuckerberg. (Quoting from Zuckerberg's original post) > "And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?" This certainly needs a citation. Ethnic conflict in Ethiopia, division in Britain around Brexit, and US polarization would seem to be obvious counter examples. It should certainly be said that correlation is not causation. Also, note that the claim that 'social media doesn't cause polarization anywhere / everywhere in the world' is a subtle bait and switch from "Facebook causes polarization in certain areas" or "Facebook's lack of robust, well-staffed safety mechanisms allow it to be exploited to cause polarization in certain areas." > "If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us?" There is more than one way to care about a research program, but absolute amount of budget spent on X is not the same thing as relative budget priority. For a company that made 54 billion in profit last quarter, it'd be more surprising if they had no research program. Zuckerberg does not present any specifics here -- what percentage of gross revenue is the research program? How many people are employed to fight content, and how does this compare to how many people are employed to encourage growth? And what's the point of research if the results are not acted upon? The whistleblower was pretty clear that the research doesn't matter even if suggested fixes will cause a <1% point hit to the core engagement metrics. Does Zuckerberg have any specific facts about how many times civic integrity / safety based suggestions was prioritized over the core metrics, other than the one example he cites (Meaningful Social Interactions)? Speaking of Meaningful Social Interactions (MSI), the whistleblower specifically said that there is a foundational problem with how MSI is defined, because it includes the number of comments a post receives. Even without intending it, it is easy to see that controversial posts will attract more attention. Zuckerberg cites no evidence about the relative percentage of comments that are angry vs other emotions, and how this has changed. > "That said, I'm worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It's disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we're effectively sending the message that it's safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you." Zuckerberg is complaining about incentive problems? The whistleblower has said that Facebook's very policies make it "not care" even if individuals do. This is also what comes across in the WSJ articles. In other words: the narrative isn't false, and this has been documented. His point about the specific incentive problem of leaked research is interesting, but it's a case of an abstract concern (for other company's research) vs. very real and well documented harm Facebook is a) doing now, and b) per the whistleblower, is unequipped to solve alone. Also, at one point in Zuckerberg's missive, he shifts the locus of responsibility from Facebook to Congress: "..at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services?" Deciding what the "right" age is can take several forms. A panel of seasoned jurists, child psychologists, policy experts, etc., can spend a long time debating what the "right" age is in the universal sense. Or, Facebook could take stand, err on the side of caution, and say that 17 is a better age than 13, and detail why they think so.
- native_samples 5y ago
  I'm British. I don't think anyone in the UK has tried to argue that disagreements over Brexit are caused by Facebook. Actually the whole idea would sound kind of absurd. People disagreed over Brexit because: 1. Some people disagree fundamentally over the nature of government and how power should function. 2. Some people were afraid of various kinds of "punishment" or instability that they were told leaving would cause, even if they would have supported it in the abstract. Neither of these have anything to do with messaging apps or social media. As for ethnic conflict in Ethiopia - ?!?! - seriously?! That part of Africa has been a hotbed of bloody tribal conflict for my entire life. It's driven by the local culture, I seriously doubt anyone there gives the tiniest shit what people post on Facebook. This is Mark's point. It's not a bait and switch to point out fundamental inconsistencies between other people's theories and the wider world. The idea that Facebook is some unique social evil that causes people to disagree just looks very odd from outside the USA, looking in. It's being made a scapegoat for US social problems. Everywhere else when people fight, they are well aware what they're fighting about and why. Re: research. You seem to be arguing that yes, they spend a lot of money on this issue but it's not enough, whilst also admitting you don't know how much they spend. You're just convinced it's too low. But this is meaningless: research programs have natural costs and you can't simply double a budget and get ... what? Conclusions that are twice as "good"? Same conclusions twice as fast? It doesn't work like that. Nor is research guaranteed to result in actionable outcomes. Look at their conclusions around Instagram. Some teenage girls said it made them feel worse, but more said it made them feel better. What's the actionable outcome here? Unless there was an incredibly specific kind of thing the girls who felt worse were seeing, there probably isn't any plausible action, and if there was some sort of specific content that made people feel bad, removing it would just be used as further proof of their guilt: they're manipulating the feed to increase engagement! The rest of this thread is all like that. You start with take that is itself controversial and extreme, like "people talking about controversial topics is inherently bad and Facebook should suppress it". Then when Facebook pushes back and points out that actually, lots of people like talking to each other, including about politics, they are cast as villains. This has all the trappings of a purity spiral. No matter how much effort Facebook makes, it's never considered to be enough. Activists who aren't quite sure what they're trying to fight or why, insist on ever more moderation in the hope that somehow this will cause other Americans to all start agreeing with them. The result is stuff like XCheck, an unstable downward spiral in which ever more aggressive moderation policies force ever more people to be exempted from them, lest the incoherency becomes too obvious.

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago

Ah, great question. The pattern I'm pointing to is a little subtle. I think at this point it pays to be extremely sceptical of Zuckerberg. (Quoting from Zuckerberg's original post) > "And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?" This certainly needs a citation. Ethnic conflict in Ethiopia, division in Britain around Brexit, and US polarization would seem to be obvious counter examples. It should certainly be said that correlation is not causation. Also, note that the claim that 'social media doesn't cause polarization anywhere / everywhere in the world' is a subtle bait and switch from "Facebook causes polarization in certain areas" or "Facebook's lack of robust, well-staffed safety mechanisms allow it to be exploited to cause polarization in certain areas." > "If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us?" There is more than one way to care about a research program, but absolute amount of budget spent on X is not the same thing as relative budget priority. For a company that made 54 billion in profit last quarter, it'd be more surprising if they had no research program. Zuckerberg does not present any specifics here -- what percentage of gross revenue is the research program? How many people are employed to fight content, and how does this compare to how many people are employed to encourage growth? And what's the point of research if the results are not acted upon? The whistleblower was pretty clear that the research doesn't matter even if suggested fixes will cause a <1% point hit to the core engagement metrics. Does Zuckerberg have any specific facts about how many times civic integrity / safety based suggestions was prioritized over the core metrics, other than the one example he cites (Meaningful Social Interactions)? Speaking of Meaningful Social Interactions (MSI), the whistleblower specifically said that there is a foundational problem with how MSI is defined, because it includes the number of comments a post receives. Even without intending it, it is easy to see that controversial posts will attract more attention. Zuckerberg cites no evidence about the relative percentage of comments that are angry vs other emotions, and how this has changed. > "That said, I'm worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It's disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we're effectively sending the message that it's safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you." Zuckerberg is complaining about incentive problems? The whistleblower has said that Facebook's very policies make it "not care" even if individuals do. This is also what comes across in the WSJ articles. In other words: the narrative isn't false, and this has been documented. His point about the specific incentive problem of leaked research is interesting, but it's a case of an abstract concern (for other company's research) vs. very real and well documented harm Facebook is a) doing now, and b) per the whistleblower, is unequipped to solve alone. Also, at one point in Zuckerberg's missive, he shifts the locus of responsibility from Facebook to Congress: "..at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services?" Deciding what the "right" age is can take several forms. A panel of seasoned jurists, child psychologists, policy experts, etc., can spend a long time debating what the "right" age is in the universal sense. Or, Facebook could take stand, err on the side of caution, and say that 17 is a better age than 13, and detail why they think so.

native_samples 5y ago
I'm British. I don't think anyone in the UK has tried to argue that disagreements over Brexit are caused by Facebook. Actually the whole idea would sound kind of absurd. People disagreed over Brexit because: 1. Some people disagree fundamentally over the nature of government and how power should function. 2. Some people were afraid of various kinds of "punishment" or instability that they were told leaving would cause, even if they would have supported it in the abstract. Neither of these have anything to do with messaging apps or social media. As for ethnic conflict in Ethiopia - ?!?! - seriously?! That part of Africa has been a hotbed of bloody tribal conflict for my entire life. It's driven by the local culture, I seriously doubt anyone there gives the tiniest shit what people post on Facebook. This is Mark's point. It's not a bait and switch to point out fundamental inconsistencies between other people's theories and the wider world. The idea that Facebook is some unique social evil that causes people to disagree just looks very odd from outside the USA, looking in. It's being made a scapegoat for US social problems. Everywhere else when people fight, they are well aware what they're fighting about and why. Re: research. You seem to be arguing that yes, they spend a lot of money on this issue but it's not enough, whilst also admitting you don't know how much they spend. You're just convinced it's too low. But this is meaningless: research programs have natural costs and you can't simply double a budget and get ... what? Conclusions that are twice as "good"? Same conclusions twice as fast? It doesn't work like that. Nor is research guaranteed to result in actionable outcomes. Look at their conclusions around Instagram. Some teenage girls said it made them feel worse, but more said it made them feel better. What's the actionable outcome here? Unless there was an incredibly specific kind of thing the girls who felt worse were seeing, there probably isn't any plausible action, and if there was some sort of specific content that made people feel bad, removing it would just be used as further proof of their guilt: they're manipulating the feed to increase engagement! The rest of this thread is all like that. You start with take that is itself controversial and extreme, like "people talking about controversial topics is inherently bad and Facebook should suppress it". Then when Facebook pushes back and points out that actually, lots of people like talking to each other, including about politics, they are cast as villains. This has all the trappings of a purity spiral. No matter how much effort Facebook makes, it's never considered to be enough. Activists who aren't quite sure what they're trying to fight or why, insist on ever more moderation in the hope that somehow this will cause other Americans to all start agreeing with them. The result is stuff like XCheck, an unstable downward spiral in which ever more aggressive moderation policies force ever more people to be exempted from them, lest the incoherency becomes too obvious.