10 ms·

Did you come up with the list or do you actually know what that team actually did? I think only the latter provides a valuable entry point for discussion. In th

Did you come up with the list or do you actually know what that team actually did? I think only the latter provides a valuable entry point for discussion. In the case of the former, we end up fighting each others imagined scenarios - and imagination is limitless. It sure leads to a lot of discussion, none of it bound by reality though. It would be nice, but would require an inside person to dare make potentially traceable (by their contents alone) public comments so it's unlikely, to know what the team actually tried to do, did do, and what it achieved. Without actual facts the discussion will just end up a free-for-all.

wpietri 4y ago
Funny that the "you don't actually know" critique comes in response not to the nakedly disparaging post that kicked this off, but the comment arguing for responsible software development. We of course don't know enough of the specifics, because Facebook works hard to keep it that way. But we do know that Facebook has a body count. If you're looking for a "valuable entry point for discussion", maybe start with Facebook's well-documented harms.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paganel 4y ago
  And because I Ctrl+F-ed it and couldn’t find anything, one of those documented harms is the Rohingya Genocide. Putting this here so that we know what we’re talking about. Seeing devs non-ironically complain about internal departments like this one which was set up in order not to let that happen again kind of saddens me a lot. No, productivity and work is not more important than making sure that that work doesn’t enable a genocide campaign in a specific corner of the world.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    I think people fundamentally disagree here. I would attribute the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events to the perpetrators. Facebook is just another tool, and its creators bear no more blame for the actions of their users in the real world than the manufactures of the vehicles driven by the Burmese military.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      There are laws put the onus on banks to proactively determine that their services aren't used to fund terrorism and multiple funky/opaque processes in banking specifically for that purpose. It kind of makes sense to me to have social media companies upheld to a similar standard that they are not used to organize terrorism or other war crimes.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement away from police departments and on to private organizations. What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. I think police (and no one else) should do policing.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        > What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding. Facebook touches people's lives in so many ways that it's hard to even estimate the total number. But it seems the barest ethical minimum to say, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?"
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?" What makes you think this possible? I don't see where Facebook is particularly responsible here. Telephones and radios have been used to coordinate assassinations and genocides. Movies have been used to justify invasions. Why isn't anyone burning the effigies of Alexander Graham Bell, Guglielmo Marconi, and Thomas Edison?
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Sorry, explain to me how Marconi directly profited from the Rwandan genocide? In any case, perfection is rarely possible but often an excellent goal to aim for. For example, consider child car fatalities. We might not immediately get it to zero, but that is no reason to say, "Fuck it, they can always have more kids."
- splistud 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
I think it's safe to assume that the team did the thing that it was assigned to do and that it was named for. It's certainly makes more sense to discuss that than to announce that we have no ability to discuss anything unless we were personally both on the team and managing the team, and were involved in making the decision to cut the team. edit: I'm sorry, we do get to discuss how they were probably wrecker nutcases stifling people who actually build things in order to make up for their own inadequacies and inability to do the same. It's only assuming that the ethics team worked on ethics that is out of bounds.
jfengel 4y ago
An awful lot of people are making comments based on the assumption that such a team exists only to invent problems. It's worth at least one person interjecting that Facebook is causing at least some problems and that a team like this could have a place, even if nobody knows precisely what this team did. Many people are taking it for granted that Facebook should have no interest in reducing harm. I'm glad somebody pushed back on that.

wpietri 4y ago

Funny that the "you don't actually know" critique comes in response not to the nakedly disparaging post that kicked this off, but the comment arguing for responsible software development. We of course don't know enough of the specifics, because Facebook works hard to keep it that way. But we do know that Facebook has a body count. If you're looking for a "valuable entry point for discussion", maybe start with Facebook's well-documented harms.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paganel 4y ago
And because I Ctrl+F-ed it and couldn’t find anything, one of those documented harms is the Rohingya Genocide. Putting this here so that we know what we’re talking about. Seeing devs non-ironically complain about internal departments like this one which was set up in order not to let that happen again kind of saddens me a lot. No, productivity and work is not more important than making sure that that work doesn’t enable a genocide campaign in a specific corner of the world.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I think people fundamentally disagree here. I would attribute the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events to the perpetrators. Facebook is just another tool, and its creators bear no more blame for the actions of their users in the real world than the manufactures of the vehicles driven by the Burmese military.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    There are laws put the onus on banks to proactively determine that their services aren't used to fund terrorism and multiple funky/opaque processes in banking specifically for that purpose. It kind of makes sense to me to have social media companies upheld to a similar standard that they are not used to organize terrorism or other war crimes.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement away from police departments and on to private organizations. What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. I think police (and no one else) should do policing.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        > What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding. Facebook touches people's lives in so many ways that it's hard to even estimate the total number. But it seems the barest ethical minimum to say, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?"
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?" What makes you think this possible? I don't see where Facebook is particularly responsible here. Telephones and radios have been used to coordinate assassinations and genocides. Movies have been used to justify invasions. Why isn't anyone burning the effigies of Alexander Graham Bell, Guglielmo Marconi, and Thomas Edison?
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Sorry, explain to me how Marconi directly profited from the Rwandan genocide? In any case, perfection is rarely possible but often an excellent goal to aim for. For example, consider child car fatalities. We might not immediately get it to zero, but that is no reason to say, "Fuck it, they can always have more kids."
splistud 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

I think it's safe to assume that the team did the thing that it was assigned to do and that it was named for. It's certainly makes more sense to discuss that than to announce that we have no ability to discuss anything unless we were personally both on the team and managing the team, and were involved in making the decision to cut the team. edit: I'm sorry, we do get to discuss how they were probably wrecker nutcases stifling people who actually build things in order to make up for their own inadequacies and inability to do the same. It's only assuming that the ethics team worked on ethics that is out of bounds.

jfengel 4y ago

An awful lot of people are making comments based on the assumption that such a team exists only to invent problems. It's worth at least one person interjecting that Facebook is causing at least some problems and that a team like this could have a place, even if nobody knows precisely what this team did. Many people are taking it for granted that Facebook should have no interest in reducing harm. I'm glad somebody pushed back on that.