3 ms·

> Sure, the Post-Office/Fujitsu scandal, Boeing etc, show how bad software actually ruins lives, but for the most-part the externality imposed by the reckless s

> Sure, the Post-Office/Fujitsu scandal, Boeing etc, show how bad software actually ruins lives, but for the most-part the externality imposed by the reckless software engineer is measured in "hours of minor inconvenience". I've been deeply critical of the appalling behaviour of the Post Office and Fujitsu in the Horizon scandal but there's a world of difference between this and the impact of Facebook in 2009. One had a foreseeable and foreseen impact on people's lives. The other was a social network competing with MySpace and looking for a way to monetise its popularity.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> there's a world of difference between this and the impact of Facebook in 2009. You're absolutely right there, Frances Haugen's leaked internal communications showed incontrovertibly that internal Facebook research had long known teen girls had increased suicidal thoughts and obtained eating disorders. Facebook and Instagram products exploited teens with manipulative algorithms designed to amplify their insecurities, and that was documented. Yet they consistently chose to maximise growth rather than implement safeguards, and to actively bury the truth that their product caused deaths [0]. Similarly the Post Office had mountains of evidence that its software was ruining lives yet engaged in a protracted, active cover-up [1]. So, very similar. But what's the "world of difference"? > looking for a way to monetise its popularity. That's a defence? You know what, that makes it worse. The Post Office were acting out of fear, whereas Facebook acted out of vanity and greed. The Post Office wanted to hide what had happened, whereas Facebook wanted to cloak ongoing misdeeds in order to continue. Simply despicable. Way I see it - Facebook come out looking much, much worse. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-congress https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistlebl... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68079300 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68079300
- scott_w 3y ago
  The NPR link is from 2021, not 2009. It links out to research from 2019, still not 2009. In 2009, Facebook was still branching out among university students.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> there's a world of difference between this and the impact of Facebook in 2009. You're absolutely right there, Frances Haugen's leaked internal communications showed incontrovertibly that internal Facebook research had long known teen girls had increased suicidal thoughts and obtained eating disorders. Facebook and Instagram products exploited teens with manipulative algorithms designed to amplify their insecurities, and that was documented. Yet they consistently chose to maximise growth rather than implement safeguards, and to actively bury the truth that their product caused deaths [0]. Similarly the Post Office had mountains of evidence that its software was ruining lives yet engaged in a protracted, active cover-up [1]. So, very similar. But what's the "world of difference"? > looking for a way to monetise its popularity. That's a defence? You know what, that makes it worse. The Post Office were acting out of fear, whereas Facebook acted out of vanity and greed. The Post Office wanted to hide what had happened, whereas Facebook wanted to cloak ongoing misdeeds in order to continue. Simply despicable. Way I see it - Facebook come out looking much, much worse. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-congress https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043377310/facebook-whistlebl... [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68079300 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68079300

scott_w 3y ago
The NPR link is from 2021, not 2009. It links out to research from 2019, still not 2009. In 2009, Facebook was still branching out among university students.