5 ms·
Meta said the contracting "did not meet (meta's) standards". I am sure that is true. meta's "standard" is not to reveal the illegal, immoral, unethical things m
by talkingtab 5mo ago
Meta said the contracting "did not meet (meta's) standards". I am sure that is true. meta's "standard" is not to reveal the illegal, immoral, unethical things meta does. No matter what the harm.
Maybe a company with those standards should not get our business. Oops, no wait, maybe they mean the Friedman Doctrine standards? In that case they are entitled to do any and every thing to make a profit. No matter what the harm.
[edit: add last two sentences]
- prepend 5mo agoIs it illegal or immoral? Having Meta review this material has to be approved by users and has their consent. There was an example in the article where a user’s glasses kept recording the user’s wife after he took them off. That’s bad but on the user, not Facebook. Seems similar to a situation where someone takes nudes of someone without their consent and then sends them off to a lab to be printed. The lab isn’t doing anything illegal or unethical printing them when they ask the user “are these legal” and the user replies “yes.” Unless you want to stop photo printers from ever printing nudes, I think the responsibility is on the user, not the firm.
- msh 5mo agoIs there explicit approval? Or is it buried in the legal agreements?
- throwpoaster 5mo agoLegal agreements are explicit.
- msh 5mo agoLol
- burnte 5mo agoYeah, why the hell is Meta wa5tching people's videos either? Why PAY a company to invade our privacy and watch our videos? It's flipping BIZARRE.
- stingraycharles 5mo agoIsn’t that obvious from the article? They’re labeling content for training AIs, something which is happening all over the world constantly.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoYep gotta bake in that personal data into generative models so it can be reproduced later for profit.
- woodson 5mo agoWhy generative? Or has it been decided that only generative models are “AI”?
- throwpoaster 5mo agoWhat kind of model "reproduce"s things later for profit that is not generative?
- Ritewut 5mo agoSurveillance models.
- stingraycharles 5mo agoClassification? Image recognition? Surveillance? There’s plenty of non-generative use cases, not everything needs to be generative.
- jmye 5mo agoAnd then people are shocked that no one wants the data centers for this shit built in their backyard.
- jaidhyani 5mo agoI used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user privacy, it's not because I'm eager to defend them. It's just true (at least, it was when I was there). There are internal systems dedicated to making sure you have access to what you need to do your job, and absolutely nothing else. All content you interact with through internal tools is monitored and logged. If you get caught trying to use whatever access your job gives you for anything other than doing your job, security immediately escorts you out of the building. This is drilled into new hires early and often. For everything Meta gets wrong, they really do take this seriously.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo agoYea but no. Meta is a defense contractor that hires out to 3rd parties exactly to do this. so you guys don't get to do that, but a lot of other people are. I hope that helped you sleep at night while you were there. But yea, it all gets bought and sold at the end of the day. The irony is meta wants to implement verification to protect kids. Meanwhile it's doing everything it can to exploit them most at every single level for profit and for the love of the game. Billions of dollars, the world's most advanced computers all dedicated for it
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- bathtub365 5mo agoMeta and their employees have spent years breaking the public’s trust over and over again. Why should we trust anything they say?
- rkagerer 5mo agoMany things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. If Facebook were designed with a different set of incentives that prioritized the user, fostered positive engagement, and better respected individual's privacy and data sovereignty - setting a better standard for the whole industry - I feel there wouldn't be all this fuss today about banning social media accounts.
- stingraycharles 5mo agoUnfortunately in today’s world where organizations are larger than many a country’s GDP, they really only have to face responsibility towards shareholders and maximizing profits is the thing they usually care about.
- deepsquirrelnet 5mo ago> At the time of the publication, Meta admitted subcontracted workers might sometimes review content filmed on its smart glasses when people shared it with Meta AI. They just got fired for "piercing the veil". They committed the sin of bringing attention to the invasion of privacy.
- alistairSH 5mo agoWere/are video recordings from the glasses advertised as being E2E encrypted? Mostly, I'm just surprised that anybody would be naive enough to take a camera provided by Facebook into a sexual encounter and expect anything else.
- ninth_ant 5mo agoIf you don’t disable the glasses they could continue to share content. The article describes the glasses being left on a dresser and then sharing content of people without their consent, which could easily parallel into showing a sexual encounter or other privacy-sensitive scenarios.
- alistairSH 5mo agoSure, and the same is true with my iPhone or my Olympus. Except the former encrypts the video and the latter isn't internet-connected. The problem here (other than Meta being Meta) is people assuming Meta isn't permanently operating in bad faith. I'm just surprised anybody into tech to the extent they'd buy first-gen VR glasses would be surprised at Meta doing Meta things. That's all, I guess.
- throwpoaster 5mo agoThat's not what the Friedman Doctrine is, technically. It is that management should obey moral, ethical, and legal frameworks in the operation of the business for the benefit of its investors; and specifically NOT take actions which are outside of that narrow scope.
- Avicebron 5mo agoDoes that include trying to influence moral, ethical, and legal frameworks to the benefit of the investors as well? Because if it does it is kind of a moot point.
- throwpoaster 5mo agoYes, although as the Koch Brothers point out in their book: you have to play by the rules that exist, not the rules you want. If you read, eg, Buffet, he makes the point that a manager donating to a political cause, whether the Heritage Foundation or, God forbid, something as far right as the SPLC, makes that donation with money that otherwise accrues to the shareholders. The manager therefore creates an agency problem, where he might pursue his own interests at the expense of the owners. If they are aligned, the manager can retain the earnings and create a dividend for the owners, such that they can then make the donation directly. If they are not aligned with the owners, they are redistributing wealth. I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it.
- Avicebron 5mo ago> I am not surprised that the Left advocates for backdoor wealth redistribution, but I would prefer they be honest about it. I'm pretty sure it's not just the Left team that advocates for bribes (sorry lobbying) to politicians. I don't think that's a very commonly held understanding of wealth redistribution either...but this argument you present isn't very coherent which is somewhat expected so I guess keep on keeping on..
- 5mo ago