2 ms·

I think part of the disagreement here is you see a whistleblower, but I see an activist. One who frankly, if I were Zuck, I would have fired or simply never hir

I think part of the disagreement here is you see a whistleblower, but I see an activist. One who frankly, if I were Zuck, I would have fired or simply never hired in the first place. Arguing that Facebook causes tribal conflict in Ethiopia by not "policing aggressively enough" or "understaffing" teams is not, to me, the argument of a whistleblower. It's the argument of someone who has totally lost perspective, of a totalitarian who believes that any and all of humanities ills can be fixed by manipulating communication platforms. It's no different to saying "if the phone company cuts off any phone call in which people are arguing, there will be no more arguments and everyone will be happy". When phrased in terms of slightly older-gen tech it is obviously absurd. "Were they to tweak the IG recommendation algorithm so that an interest in healthier eating did not lead to anorexia content, people like myself would applaud" Good on you for being consistent then! Sadly it seems to be very rare. Look at Zuck's post. He points out that Facebook did in fact make changes to prioritize stories from friends and family, even though that reduced their income and reduced the amount people used the site i.e. a lot of users were actually people who don't care much about their cousin's cat pictures, but do care a lot about civics, or phrased another way, "divisive politics". Yet it doesn't seem to have done them any good. For people like Haugen and a depressing number of HN posters it's not enough to re-rank nice safe family stories about new babies. For them Facebook also has to solve teenage depression, war in Africa and probably world hunger whilst they're at it. And if they aren't it's because they're "under-staffing" or refusing to "adequately police" things.

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago
My perception is that people aren't expecting facebook to solve teenage depression, but to prevent themselves from contributing to it if they are. FB's research has been criticized by scientists as being of poor quality [0], and Zuckerberg claims the findings were cherry picked. This actually good news for FB if true. Should they partner with neutral, third party university research teams, as well as commit to a transparent investigation, they'll be able to clear things up. Not everyone would agree, but I believe that many people are capable of changing their minds when presented with new evidence. The metaphor of a phone company cutting off an argument is an interesting one. I agree that people arguing is a fact of society / nature, and I also agree that cutting off a phone call seems like an absurd way to try and solve the larger problem. But at the same time, I don't think the metaphor fully applies, for the following reasons: First, a phone call is a one-to-one communication, and Facebook is one-to-many. It's rare if not unheard of for strangers to call each other and say what they think about, for example, a NYT article. Second, there is no recommendation system pushing "engaging" subjects, where engagement can be defined in terms of how controversial it is. Third, only 9% of FB users speak english, and Haugen testified that the non-english safety features, tweaks to the ranking algorithm, and tooling are not as good (potentially drastically worse?) in non-english languages. Most people would argue that phone companies have some responsibility to prevent spam calls, similar to how an email services prevent or flag spam emails. These are network level actions, and a lot of Haugen's testimony was about how FB was being irresponsible in this regard. [0] https://unherd.com/2021/09/facebooks-bad-science/ https://unherd.com/2021/09/facebooks-bad-science/

YossarianFrPrez 5y ago

My perception is that people aren't expecting facebook to solve teenage depression, but to prevent themselves from contributing to it if they are. FB's research has been criticized by scientists as being of poor quality [0], and Zuckerberg claims the findings were cherry picked. This actually good news for FB if true. Should they partner with neutral, third party university research teams, as well as commit to a transparent investigation, they'll be able to clear things up. Not everyone would agree, but I believe that many people are capable of changing their minds when presented with new evidence. The metaphor of a phone company cutting off an argument is an interesting one. I agree that people arguing is a fact of society / nature, and I also agree that cutting off a phone call seems like an absurd way to try and solve the larger problem. But at the same time, I don't think the metaphor fully applies, for the following reasons: First, a phone call is a one-to-one communication, and Facebook is one-to-many. It's rare if not unheard of for strangers to call each other and say what they think about, for example, a NYT article. Second, there is no recommendation system pushing "engaging" subjects, where engagement can be defined in terms of how controversial it is. Third, only 9% of FB users speak english, and Haugen testified that the non-english safety features, tweaks to the ranking algorithm, and tooling are not as good (potentially drastically worse?) in non-english languages. Most people would argue that phone companies have some responsibility to prevent spam calls, similar to how an email services prevent or flag spam emails. These are network level actions, and a lot of Haugen's testimony was about how FB was being irresponsible in this regard. [0] https://unherd.com/2021/09/facebooks-bad-science/ https://unherd.com/2021/09/facebooks-bad-science/