3 ms·

Feels kinda weird to mentally put myself in the position of Zuck the billionaire robot, but the letter does read like a counter-example from Dale Carnegie's boo

by aasasd 5y ago

Feels kinda weird to mentally put myself in the position of Zuck the billionaire robot, but the letter does read like a counter-example from Dale Carnegie's books. The words ‘profit’ or ‘revenue’ aren't mentioned once—instead it's just ‘why don't you do this thing we want you to do’. Edit: I think it might even help to imagine a ‘comedy in characters’ of this situation: Previously in FB. — Zuck, they say FB is bad for the brain! — Well, how bad, if this is gonna blow in our faces? Several months later. — This bad. Zuck spins for some cycles, counting zeroes on the bank balance. — I can live with that. A bunch of researchers see that FB funds research. — Yo, we also can tell you in detail how bad it is! Give us some funding. Zuck: — ???

slg 5y ago
There is an underlying argument that one shouldn't put a price tag on the mental health of the world's children therefore "profit" and "revenue" shouldn't even be introduced into the conversation. If the Meta counterargument is anything along the lines of "that is too expensive", then they already lost any ethical standing they could have had on the issue.
- aasasd 5y ago
  Well, I think I can tell you exactly what FB's response to the letter will be. It's this:
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Do you want ethical grandstanding or do you want the letter you write to change anything?
  - slg 5y ago
    Why are those mutually exclusive? Ethical grandstanding can be a method to motivate change. To me it seems like a stronger argument than economics as those incentives are all currently pushing in the opposite direction.
    - vasco 5y ago
      The only change grandstanding does is enlarge the ego of the writer and add to the confirmation bias of those who already agreed.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      Grandstanding is typically meant to reach the masses. Are the masses interested in this kind of letter? Letters are not an ideal medium to change things via ethical grandstanding. Most people just aren't concerned with what random strangers write to large companies. Grandstanding may have a role in effecting change, especially political change, and letters may play a role in a larger grandstanding campaign led by someone with an influence and following — but in the era of the Internet and television, it is often an ancillary role. The more successful campaigns of grandstanding via letters have often included strongly principled letters with sharp yet carefully restrained language. The contents of such a letter are published as a full-page ad in a major newspaper such as the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal. Ideally, they will be signed by credible authors, often many of them. Something like this: http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf Or this: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/oq9su1/let_cuba_live_full_page_ad_in_todays_ny_times/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/oq9su1/let_cuba_li... But even these have had limited direct impact. What hope does your letter have? If your grandstanding target is more specific than the general public, the question still remains: will this letter reach and affect them?
  - b112 5y ago
    Here's the problem. Take cigarettes. Known harmful, regulations around selling to youth expanded, again and again. In Canada, first, as a store, you couldn't sell. Then fines for selling, 100s, then thousands of dollars. Then it became illegal to show cigarettes in the store, they had to be hidden behind counter. Traditional media was outlawed from marketing, showing them too. My point is, if industry doesn't change, then government will eventually step in, and no matter how powerful or rich, an industry will bow to the law. Government moves slowly, often taking a decade to move, or more, but due to people like Zuck, and due to corps like Google and Twitter, government regulation is coming, because they aren't self regulating. Corps never seem to, history is full of such examples. The problem is though, that these platforms are now conjoined with how we express ourselves, and thus, this new series of upcoming regulations are very, very wrought with landmines, and the potential to significantly impact free speech going forward. Free expression is at the core of our modern democracies, and if government become too controlling here, or conversely if private corps too wary, we literally could end up wit truncated democracies. The decisions being made right now, will impact the future dramatocally, for generations. This is a fulcrum, a focal point, a nexus of change. I am concerned.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    Surprisingly often people seem to select ethical grandstanding in that case.

by aasasd 5y ago

slg 5y ago

There is an underlying argument that one shouldn't put a price tag on the mental health of the world's children therefore "profit" and "revenue" shouldn't even be introduced into the conversation. If the Meta counterargument is anything along the lines of "that is too expensive", then they already lost any ethical standing they could have had on the issue.

aasasd 5y ago
Well, I think I can tell you exactly what FB's response to the letter will be. It's this:
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Do you want ethical grandstanding or do you want the letter you write to change anything?
- slg 5y ago
  Why are those mutually exclusive? Ethical grandstanding can be a method to motivate change. To me it seems like a stronger argument than economics as those incentives are all currently pushing in the opposite direction.
  - vasco 5y ago
    The only change grandstanding does is enlarge the ego of the writer and add to the confirmation bias of those who already agreed.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Grandstanding is typically meant to reach the masses. Are the masses interested in this kind of letter? Letters are not an ideal medium to change things via ethical grandstanding. Most people just aren't concerned with what random strangers write to large companies. Grandstanding may have a role in effecting change, especially political change, and letters may play a role in a larger grandstanding campaign led by someone with an influence and following — but in the era of the Internet and television, it is often an ancillary role. The more successful campaigns of grandstanding via letters have often included strongly principled letters with sharp yet carefully restrained language. The contents of such a letter are published as a full-page ad in a major newspaper such as the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal. Ideally, they will be signed by credible authors, often many of them. Something like this: http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf Or this: https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/oq9su1/let_cuba_live_full_page_ad_in_todays_ny_times/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/oq9su1/let_cuba_li... But even these have had limited direct impact. What hope does your letter have? If your grandstanding target is more specific than the general public, the question still remains: will this letter reach and affect them?
- b112 5y ago
  Here's the problem. Take cigarettes. Known harmful, regulations around selling to youth expanded, again and again. In Canada, first, as a store, you couldn't sell. Then fines for selling, 100s, then thousands of dollars. Then it became illegal to show cigarettes in the store, they had to be hidden behind counter. Traditional media was outlawed from marketing, showing them too. My point is, if industry doesn't change, then government will eventually step in, and no matter how powerful or rich, an industry will bow to the law. Government moves slowly, often taking a decade to move, or more, but due to people like Zuck, and due to corps like Google and Twitter, government regulation is coming, because they aren't self regulating. Corps never seem to, history is full of such examples. The problem is though, that these platforms are now conjoined with how we express ourselves, and thus, this new series of upcoming regulations are very, very wrought with landmines, and the potential to significantly impact free speech going forward. Free expression is at the core of our modern democracies, and if government become too controlling here, or conversely if private corps too wary, we literally could end up wit truncated democracies. The decisions being made right now, will impact the future dramatocally, for generations. This is a fulcrum, a focal point, a nexus of change. I am concerned.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  Surprisingly often people seem to select ethical grandstanding in that case.