5 ms·

FB is the least likely to be hurt by Apple's move since they have their own massive number of users across multiple properties and lots of tracking on the web.

FB is the least likely to be hurt by Apple's move since they have their own massive number of users across multiple properties and lots of tracking on the web. If anything they might benefit by smaller players that have less access getting hurt more by Apple. I'm not personally a fan of FB (mostly due to the ad based business model), but today's negative press will have zero affect on them - mostly because (imo) it's bullshit. A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. If anything unseats them it'll be a technical shift that moves things to protocols 'web3'. Zuckerberg is an extremely good CEO though so I suspect he's already planning for this potential and FB's upcoming name change and structure is probably a way to accommodate this (in addition to having Oculus be a more separate entity for VR/AR and the next platform).

colinmhayes 5y ago
I don't think giving some people special privileges that allows them to post revenge porn which ruins people's lives is the best they can do. I don't think allowing ads that they know are contributing to sex slavery is the best they can do. I definitely don't think allowing governments to organize genocide on their platform is the best they can do. Their constraints are not impossible. They've just got to realize that their algorithm to detect rule breaking doesn't work and they need to hire minimum 100,000 moderators.
- whymauri 5y ago
  One just has to read the leaks of internal employee messages to realize that FB is clearly not doing the best they can do. Literally by admission of their own employees. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p...
- aierou 5y ago
  Your own examples cover a broad range of social and political issues that even the savviest state governments struggle to navigate. How could anyone possibly moderate for such delicate and complex expectations? 100,000 moderators? Perhaps our demands for censorship are what is unreasonable.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Facebook can easily afford 100,000 moderators. But that's not even the problem. Facebook knew they were causing the genocide in Myanmar. They knew they were contributing to sex slavery in Ethiopia. They decided not to solve those problems because they were concerned about the effect it would have on engagement. If they don't want to do what it takes to make their platform safe they should expect legal intervention.
- slownews45 5y ago
  Is govt doing a good job with this stuff off of facebook? I know plenty of folks who really had trouble getting even govt action on all sorts of harm (revenge porn / various internet scams). I really hope at least govt can deliver on this stuff reliably - the risk is folks will lose faith in govt rather than these big companies (google / apple / whatsapp / instagram etc).
moneywoes 5y ago
Please eli5 web3. Keep seeing the term but haven’t found a good answer
- neurobashing 5y ago
  I took it to mean something about use of blockchain, especially but not limited to Ethereum, and "smart contracts", to create a new kind of distributed app platform. But I am not sure that's right.
- gonehome 5y ago
  It loosely refers to decentralized applications that have some form of protocol level way to incentivize users. This is often blockchain related, but not always (Urbit isn't except for its IDs). An example would be Audius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s That interview should give you some idea, the space is very young but the tech is interesting.
nitrogen 5y ago
It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. Nobody's going to sympathize too much with a company that brought its woes upon itself. If you can't handle moderating three billion people, don't put yourself in the position of trying to moderate three billion people.
- reed1234 5y ago
  So what are you suggesting? For Facebook to decide to just turn off the lights one day? There is evidently market for a social network like Facebook so I’m sure another would step in before too long with the same problem.
  - doctor_eval 5y ago
    There is plenty they could do. Just today it’s been reported that Facebook themselves “have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as vitality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why [hate] speech flourish[es] on the platform”[0] FB doesn’t need to shut down, they just need to give a fuck about the safety of their users and the societies in which they live. It’s been evident to anyone who cares to look that this has not been the case. [0] “Facebook admits site appears hardwired for misinformation, memo reveals” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-admits-site-appears-hardwired-misinformation-memo-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-...
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Federate. We went from walled gardens of the late 1980s and early 1990s to the federated Internet, but now we're back to walled gardens. It takes a diversity of approaches to solve the diversity of problems, and that's only really possible with separate organizations all competing to solve those problems for different niches.
    - zenmaster10665 5y ago
      How is that not what is happening right now? Would you recommend users take responsibility for being custodians of their own data? If so, how will the average user keep that data safe without resources and understanding of the threats their data face?
paul7986 5y ago
Exactly humanity is on Facebook and there are different subsets of humanity who think differently (it would be a lame world if we all thought like each other .. who'd we argue and debate with and more). Facebook needs to and always remain a neutral party where there isnt physical danger occurring or happening. The whistleblower is backed by Pierre Omiydar's foundatoin, the founder of E-bay. So it could be a bit of one billionaire using his money to go after another. The whistleblower is a nothing burger and she now works indirectly for Ebay cofounder. She is having her 15 minutes of fame and Im sure people who cheer her on will hire her in the future.
- gonehome 5y ago
  To me "whistleblowing" is supposed to be about revealing criminal activity. This stuff is just hard policy challenges without any easy answers. FB is generally open about that and what they're trying to do in order to reduce risk. The problem is mostly upstream. I'm not an apologist and FB has made mistakes (Steven Levy's book Facebook: The Inside Story is a great look into a lot of the history and it's rare in that it's actually a fair account of things). Growth at all costs (Chamath's team) lead to a lot of problems in developing countries. Incentives around engagement and controversy, etc. FB has massive teams working on reducing the risks around this stuff, but it's impossible to eliminate because most of humanity believes insane contradictory things. “Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.” Put three billion tribal apes in one place and what do you expect? HN is the best case outcome and dang does a great job, but we're a pretty selected bunch, and even then it's difficult to pull off (and we're a smaller, focused community). We're trapped in a local maximum largely because our computing stack sucks (imo) and everything has to be a SaaS due to the extreme complexity and cost to administer anything. I hope that Urbit succeeds and we get out of this, but I don't think this is something FB can really fix - it's not even a problem anyone should be responsible for fixing. The fact things are like this is an accident of history and hopefully an anachronism of our time. It also doesn't help that our politicians (across the political spectrum) mostly just aren't very smart: https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick
trhway 5y ago
>It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. "moderate"? as far as i understand they stoke the fire. Whatever cultural wars are raging on FB, Coka vs. Pepsi, liberals vs. conservatives, FB gets engagement, ie. money, from the both sides. They are like fight cage owner - they get paid either way. And their "moderation" - just like the fight cage owner they may prevent the fighters from say using knives as it would adversely affect the quality of fight - ends too soon, etc. - and thus revenue.
munk-a 5y ago
> A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. This is a problem that they've created at scale. In the US our closest thing to social issue moderation is probably the police (though please leave any efficacy discussion at the door) and there are 17 officers per 10k people in the US that make 67.6k/annual. Amortized per capita we expend about $114.92 for law enforcement in the real world - Facebook doesn't need a similar per-capita expenditure to keep its platform, but if you think it ends up spending more than 5 cents per user in amortized moderation costs I've got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This social issue at scale didn't exist before Facebook - it might have naturally existed over time through the popularity of platforms like Disqus and disjointed forums. But Facebook owns the problem and nurtured it into the beast we know today. The social problems are an externality of Facebook's business model which they want nothing to do with fixing - it should be treated no differently than a paper mill polluting a river.
- baby 5y ago
  I think all of us own the problem. Technology and progress are not going to stop, if not Facebook then some other company would have brought us here. I think connecting people is a good thing, and Facebook made the world a better place so far (just my opinion), but misinformation is becoming easier and easier with technology and it won't stop here without some innovative ideas or groundbreaking regulations.
- polyomino 5y ago
  perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million. They said in the earnings report they will spend $5 Billion this year on moderation. Feel free to file a complaint with the SEC.
  - wott 5y ago
    > perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million. This is some creative math!
HWR_14 5y ago
> It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. They're also making money off 3 billion people. If it costs $1/month (on average) to moderate a single person, they can afford to do that and it wouldn't even cut their profits in half. And I think $1/month is actually high for what it would actually cost. I think for $1/month you could have US-based employees do it. You can complain that it's a high cost, but it's certainly not impossible.

colinmhayes 5y ago

I don't think giving some people special privileges that allows them to post revenge porn which ruins people's lives is the best they can do. I don't think allowing ads that they know are contributing to sex slavery is the best they can do. I definitely don't think allowing governments to organize genocide on their platform is the best they can do. Their constraints are not impossible. They've just got to realize that their algorithm to detect rule breaking doesn't work and they need to hire minimum 100,000 moderators.

whymauri 5y ago
One just has to read the leaks of internal employee messages to realize that FB is clearly not doing the best they can do. Literally by admission of their own employees. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-papers-democracy-election-zuckerberg/620478/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p...
aierou 5y ago
Your own examples cover a broad range of social and political issues that even the savviest state governments struggle to navigate. How could anyone possibly moderate for such delicate and complex expectations? 100,000 moderators? Perhaps our demands for censorship are what is unreasonable.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Facebook can easily afford 100,000 moderators. But that's not even the problem. Facebook knew they were causing the genocide in Myanmar. They knew they were contributing to sex slavery in Ethiopia. They decided not to solve those problems because they were concerned about the effect it would have on engagement. If they don't want to do what it takes to make their platform safe they should expect legal intervention.
slownews45 5y ago
Is govt doing a good job with this stuff off of facebook? I know plenty of folks who really had trouble getting even govt action on all sorts of harm (revenge porn / various internet scams). I really hope at least govt can deliver on this stuff reliably - the risk is folks will lose faith in govt rather than these big companies (google / apple / whatsapp / instagram etc).

moneywoes 5y ago

Please eli5 web3. Keep seeing the term but haven’t found a good answer

neurobashing 5y ago
I took it to mean something about use of blockchain, especially but not limited to Ethereum, and "smart contracts", to create a new kind of distributed app platform. But I am not sure that's right.
gonehome 5y ago
It loosely refers to decentralized applications that have some form of protocol level way to incentivize users. This is often blockchain related, but not always (Urbit isn't except for its IDs). An example would be Audius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s That interview should give you some idea, the space is very young but the tech is interesting.

nitrogen 5y ago

It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. Nobody's going to sympathize too much with a company that brought its woes upon itself. If you can't handle moderating three billion people, don't put yourself in the position of trying to moderate three billion people.

reed1234 5y ago
So what are you suggesting? For Facebook to decide to just turn off the lights one day? There is evidently market for a social network like Facebook so I’m sure another would step in before too long with the same problem.
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  There is plenty they could do. Just today it’s been reported that Facebook themselves “have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as vitality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why [hate] speech flourish[es] on the platform”[0] FB doesn’t need to shut down, they just need to give a fuck about the safety of their users and the societies in which they live. It’s been evident to anyone who cares to look that this has not been the case. [0] “Facebook admits site appears hardwired for misinformation, memo reveals” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-admits-site-appears-hardwired-misinformation-memo-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-...
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Federate. We went from walled gardens of the late 1980s and early 1990s to the federated Internet, but now we're back to walled gardens. It takes a diversity of approaches to solve the diversity of problems, and that's only really possible with separate organizations all competing to solve those problems for different niches.
  - zenmaster10665 5y ago
    How is that not what is happening right now? Would you recommend users take responsibility for being custodians of their own data? If so, how will the average user keep that data safe without resources and understanding of the threats their data face?

paul7986 5y ago

Exactly humanity is on Facebook and there are different subsets of humanity who think differently (it would be a lame world if we all thought like each other .. who'd we argue and debate with and more). Facebook needs to and always remain a neutral party where there isnt physical danger occurring or happening. The whistleblower is backed by Pierre Omiydar's foundatoin, the founder of E-bay. So it could be a bit of one billionaire using his money to go after another. The whistleblower is a nothing burger and she now works indirectly for Ebay cofounder. She is having her 15 minutes of fame and Im sure people who cheer her on will hire her in the future.

gonehome 5y ago
To me "whistleblowing" is supposed to be about revealing criminal activity. This stuff is just hard policy challenges without any easy answers. FB is generally open about that and what they're trying to do in order to reduce risk. The problem is mostly upstream. I'm not an apologist and FB has made mistakes (Steven Levy's book Facebook: The Inside Story is a great look into a lot of the history and it's rare in that it's actually a fair account of things). Growth at all costs (Chamath's team) lead to a lot of problems in developing countries. Incentives around engagement and controversy, etc. FB has massive teams working on reducing the risks around this stuff, but it's impossible to eliminate because most of humanity believes insane contradictory things. “Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.” Put three billion tribal apes in one place and what do you expect? HN is the best case outcome and dang does a great job, but we're a pretty selected bunch, and even then it's difficult to pull off (and we're a smaller, focused community). We're trapped in a local maximum largely because our computing stack sucks (imo) and everything has to be a SaaS due to the extreme complexity and cost to administer anything. I hope that Urbit succeeds and we get out of this, but I don't think this is something FB can really fix - it's not even a problem anyone should be responsible for fixing. The fact things are like this is an accident of history and hopefully an anachronism of our time. It also doesn't help that our politicians (across the political spectrum) mostly just aren't very smart: https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick

trhway 5y ago

>It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. "moderate"? as far as i understand they stoke the fire. Whatever cultural wars are raging on FB, Coka vs. Pepsi, liberals vs. conservatives, FB gets engagement, ie. money, from the both sides. They are like fight cage owner - they get paid either way. And their "moderation" - just like the fight cage owner they may prevent the fighters from say using knives as it would adversely affect the quality of fight - ends too soon, etc. - and thus revenue.

munk-a 5y ago

> A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. This is a problem that they've created at scale. In the US our closest thing to social issue moderation is probably the police (though please leave any efficacy discussion at the door) and there are 17 officers per 10k people in the US that make 67.6k/annual. Amortized per capita we expend about $114.92 for law enforcement in the real world - Facebook doesn't need a similar per-capita expenditure to keep its platform, but if you think it ends up spending more than 5 cents per user in amortized moderation costs I've got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This social issue at scale didn't exist before Facebook - it might have naturally existed over time through the popularity of platforms like Disqus and disjointed forums. But Facebook owns the problem and nurtured it into the beast we know today. The social problems are an externality of Facebook's business model which they want nothing to do with fixing - it should be treated no differently than a paper mill polluting a river.

baby 5y ago
I think all of us own the problem. Technology and progress are not going to stop, if not Facebook then some other company would have brought us here. I think connecting people is a good thing, and Facebook made the world a better place so far (just my opinion), but misinformation is becoming easier and easier with technology and it won't stop here without some innovative ideas or groundbreaking regulations.
polyomino 5y ago
perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million. They said in the earnings report they will spend $5 Billion this year on moderation. Feel free to file a complaint with the SEC.
- wott 5y ago
  > perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million. This is some creative math!

HWR_14 5y ago

> It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints. They're also making money off 3 billion people. If it costs $1/month (on average) to moderate a single person, they can afford to do that and it wouldn't even cut their profits in half. And I think $1/month is actually high for what it would actually cost. I think for $1/month you could have US-based employees do it. You can complain that it's a high cost, but it's certainly not impossible.