[HN Gopher] Facebook's "see no evil" strategy ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook's "see no evil" strategy Author : samizdis Score : 126 points Date : 2021-07-15 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.axios.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com) | klausjensen wrote: | Referenced column by Kevin Roose (behind NYT paywall): | | https://archive.md/As8DH | tablespoon wrote: | > The company, blamed for everything from election interference | to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a | skeptical public.... | | > These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously | because they were not authorized to discuss internal | conversations, said Facebook's executives were more worried | about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying | harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was | amplifying harmful content. Transparency, they said, ultimately | took a back seat to image management. | | I can think of few approaches that are _worse_ than that at | rebuilding trust. "Building trust," by ignoring the real issue | to focus on perceptions can only work (sometimes) if you can | dominate someone's perceptions. Facebook doesn't have the power | to do that, especially since it's lost the public's trust and | invited more scrutiny. | | And that leads me to the conclusion that Facebook's executives | may not event understand even some basic things about trust, at | least with they're in a sociopathic corporate setting. | dfadsadsf wrote: | The problem is defining harmful content. For some it's china | lab theory, for others CRT/anti-racist propoganda or stolen | election. What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad | at it. FB can't win here. | | Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely | dangerous when applied to social networks. If 5 years ago it | was unquestionable that USA has more press and thought | freedom than India, Russia or China, the situation now is | much more nuanced and really depends on the topic discussed. | What it mean for democracy in US long term is a big question. | wwweston wrote: | What a lot of people mean by "Harmful content" isn't | opinions and discourse on whether something is good or bad. | Harmful content is disinformation about what something is. | | It's a concept that can be abused for certain, and I | suppose that makes it dangerous. | | Unfortunately, there's also dangers in _not_ intervening. | | Every space in which valuable discourse takes place has to | take some form of order including restraint seriously, | otherwise the bad drives out the good. And if you look at | the places we take discourse most seriously -- institutions | of learning, courtrooms, legislative bodies -- because | valued outcomes rely on how robust the discourse is, more | order and restraint requirements seem to become the rule. | And yet there's also lots of thought put into how to allow | as much input as possible, even outright adversarial input. | | It's possible that at a certain scale, social media systems | have to move from a laissez faire approach to some sort of | similar balance. It'd probably be best if each took | responsibility to decide what that is. Twitter's approach | doesn't have to be the same as FBs, but everybody has some | responsibility to try and make discourse as good as they | can (at least, if the reason they value freedom of speech | is because of the value of discourse, rather than as a | personal indulgence). | | > What ever FB censures, half the country will be mad at | it. FB can't win here. | | People across the political spectrum are already mad at FB, | and some have decided on a posture that lets them push the | drama that FB is biased against them no matter what FB's | actual policy is. FB has nothing to lose by making its best | faith effort. And I'd like to think that no matter what | someone's general political sensibilities are they can find | a way to advocate for them under conditions where order and | some degree of accountability for truthfulness is required | of them. | epicureanideal wrote: | > And I'd like to think that no matter what someone's | general political sensibilities are they can find a way | to advocate for them under conditions where order and | some degree of accountability for truthfulness is | required of them. | | The problem is that the sides don't even agree on the | same facts anymore. For example, some think there was | election fraud, and some don't. Some believe there is | actual evidence of election fraud, and some don't. And | neither side is without some evidence. For example, there | have been election audits and those seem to show there | was no fraud, so that's evidence. But at the same time, | there are other auditors that show very convincing | evidence that there was at least some additional voter | fraud beyond what was detected in the audits. | | If I recall correctly, there were some science | experiments in the past that sort of "wiggled around" the | truth for a period of decades as they got closer to the | truth. With current events, it seems like it's a lot more | like that than to just look outside the window and say | it's raining or not. | | For example, look at how certain views were banned on | YouTube... until the CDC/FDA/etc. itself reversed its | position and now those are the mainstream or at least | acceptable views. | | Isn't it usually the case that a difference in opinion | ultimately is the result of a difference of belief about | facts? And if that's the case, if a biased moderator of | any platform can decide what the facts are, that is | effectively the same as deciding what opinions are valid. | And although there are some clear cases of ridiculous | beliefs that we can think about (flat earth, etc.), very | quickly we get into murky territory. | | I mean, just imagine if Facebook was established in the | deep south, and suppressed all non-Christian opinions as | counter-factual? "The evidence is clear" they would say, | "here in the Holy Bible". | wwweston wrote: | > The problem is that the sides don't even agree on the | same facts anymore. | | That's certainly going to be the case at times, but | that's also no reason to give up. Where substantial | outcomes rely on facts, good institutions build ways of | addressing contention _about the facts themselves_ into | to the order they impose on discourse. It can 't | _guarantee_ a correct outcome -- as you say, sometimes | you have to wiggle around the truth for a while first -- | but it 's better than the nihilism of failing to engage | the problem altogether. | | > some think there was election fraud, and some don't. | | The institutions where questions of election fraud were | mediated were accessible to both sides in equal measure | -- arguably biased toward the side that lost, given how | the privilege of selecting judicial appointments has | shaken out over the last two decades and who held the | resources/power available to federal and various state | executive authorities last fall. And they seem to have | determined that evidence of systemic outcome-changing | fraud was thin indeed. | | I suppose it's possible to imagine a different outcome | from a similarly robust process over time, but if there | are "other auditors that show very convincing evidence" | of outcome-changing fraud, it would be interesting hear | what that specifically is, and why that evidence didn't | make its way into the venues that actually mattered in a | moment when the outgoing administration had considerable | advantages. | tablespoon wrote: | > But at the same time, there are other auditors that | show very convincing evidence that there was at least | some additional voter fraud beyond what was detected in | the audits. | | What evidence, exactly? IIRC, there were some | professional-looking mathy analyses that claimed to find | it, but they all had glaring methodological errors. | | I think there are cases where "the sides don't even agree | on the same facts anymore" and both have some claim to | truth, but it's not on election fraud or the election | results. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > ... and some have decided on a posture that lets them | push the drama that FB is biased against them no matter | what FB's actual policy is. | | "The only way to find the limits of what's possible is to | push past them to the impossible." I forget who said it, | but some people will push what they can get away with as | far as possible, and then try to go farther. No matter | where FB sets the line, they'll try to go past it, | because they care about _winning_ , not about civil | discourse or reasonable standards or fairness or anything | like that. (Rules are for the other side.) The fact that | they can then play the martyr that FB is oppressing is a | side benefit. | bruiseralmighty wrote: | > Harmful content is disinformation about what something | is. | | This is the crux of the issue. Legacy institutions are | used to determining what is true and therefore what is | inside the bounds of allowable opinion. | | This was their domain for decades but it can now be | seriously challenged by relatively few people due to the | amplification in sharing of human thought through the | internet. | | Their degradation was the only outcome likely from | networking so many individuals together. | | 'Disinformation', even if you are inclined to trust | legacy institutions, should be viewed with a healthy | degree of skepticism. Even if we grant that legacy | institutions always had the closest approximation reality | over the past several decades (and this is generous). | | Everyone should now be able to recognize these players | for what they are: self interested actors bending public | perception of reality to convenient conclusions for their | own benefit. Given this, it is not surprising that people | are more motivated than ever before to uncover past | warpings of past narratives. They are searching for their | historical moment. | | Now we can grant that it may be best to have these legacy | institutions looking out for our interests rather than | some unknowable future state of governance. But checking | their past conduct is a textbook littered with dark | chapters that is now being viewed with the understanding | that these are the rosier sections. Not a good look. As | we move forward in time the failings of existing | governments will only become more apparent not less; and | it will continue to make less and less sense to believe | in them. | | The alternative to this would be to either restrict | information flow to some pre-digital age or to perpetuate | totalitarian regimes in charge of protecting their own | existence by manipulating the masses into passivity. | | And here is the second crux, it is only the legacy | institutions from the 20th century who are perpetuating | the conflict. Were the doubters given license to control | their own territory, we have every indication that they | would leave the past well enough alone and forge ahead. | But the 20th century just cannot let go its dreams of | total domination of thought and reality. | tablespoon wrote: | > Personally I think "harmful content" concept is extremely | dangerous when applied to social networks. | | It's a kludge. The real problem is broadcast technology | becoming too easy to access (in the form of social media). | It's reduced transmission friction too much, which has | seriously undermined the ability of the "marketplace of | ideas" to filter the good from the bad. There's a sweet | spot between monopolization and total democratization of | broadcast technology, and I don't think we're there | anymore. | | > If 5 years ago it was unquestionable that USA has more | press and thought freedom than India, Russia or China, the | situation now is much more nuanced and really depends on | the topic discussed. | | _Come on._ You could only say such a thing if you 're | almost totally ignorant of "press and thought freedom" | situation in China. About the only thing you can say China | is more permissive of than the US is outright racism, and | that's only _at the social level_ (you can still legally be | a flaming racist in the US, it 's just that many people | won't want to associate with you and many will remind you | you're full of shit). I'm less familiar with Russia and | India, but I highly doubt the situations there will salvage | your statement. | hammock wrote: | This is actually a really insightful way to look at it. I | gather you are saying Facebook should not be the one to | do the "filtering," but also that it's not ideal for each | individual to have to do it themselves. What's the | solution? | tablespoon wrote: | > What's the solution? | | The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, | which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook | and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to | ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like | handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders | playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be | monopolized by one group or another, but they should also | not be in the hands of untrained first graders on | playgrounds. | | A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the | ability to share widely on social media sites: no public | posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap | the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to | easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, | get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. Bring | back classic web forums for communities, and push people | who want to build an audience back to blogs and personal | websites. | hammock wrote: | _> The easiest and least problematic is to add friction, | which in my fantasies would be to ban sites like Facebook | and Twitter outright that provide too-easy access to | ready-made audiences of millions. They're basically like | handing out loaded guns to a class of first graders | playing on a playground. Guns are fine and shouldn't be | monopolized by one group or another, but they should also | not be in the hands of untrained first graders on | playgrounds._ | | Friction, or training? In the example of guns, there are | SCREENING (not exactly the same as friction) and | education/training that many seem to agree are a good | solution. Could the same be applied to social media? | | _> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the | ability to share widely on social media sites: no public | posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap | the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to | easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, | get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc._ | | This is again just letting Facebook dictate the solution | - not that much different than the unilateral censorship | they do. | | _> Bring back classic web forums for communities, and | push people who want to build an audience back to blogs | and personal websites._ | | Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good | approach. | tablespoon wrote: | > Friction, or training? | | Friction. | | > In the example of guns, there are SCREENING (not | exactly the same as friction) and education/training that | many seem to agree are a good solution. Could the same be | applied to social media? | | Not really. The analogy between guns and social media is | not perfect. Training as a solution has special problems | with applied to media access that it doesn't have with | guns. Specifically, it would probably amount to some kind | of indoctrination program. Gun training is a technical | topic, like how to drive a car safely. | | >> A somewhat less radical form would be to kneecap the | ability to share widely on social media sites: no public | posts, sharing limited to direct connections (and a cap | the number of those to 1000 or something), no features to | easily re-share a post outside of its initial audience, | get rid of groups, kick out organizations, etc. | | > This is again just letting Facebook dictate the | solution - not that much different than the unilateral | censorship they do. | | Actually, that was me dictating a solution to Facebook | that stopped short of shutting them down. I'm pretty sure | they'd hate to follow it. | | And the important difference is that _everything_ I | suggested is content neutral, so it can 't accurately be | called "censorship." | | > Seems like this is happening today, and might be a good | approach. | | Yes, but if it's happening today, I'd bet money it's | mostly people who can handle social media relatively | well. The problematic people who probably shouldn't have | access to a broadcast megaphone are likely still on | Facebook and Twitter and are unlikely to leave. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Adding friction helps slow down the honest but gullible. | But if you have an organized, professional disinformation | campaign, they're willing to do the work to push against | the friction. | | I suppose they count on their gullible followers to | multiply their efforts, and hindering that will have an | effect, even against organized campaigns, and that's | good. But I wonder whether it will make organized | campaigns relatively more powerful. If so, that might not | be a net win. | MengerSponge wrote: | Trustworthiness simply isn't in their corporate DNA. | | Zuck: People just submitted it. | | Zuck: I don't know why. | | Zuck: They "trust me" | | Zuck: Dumb fucks. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg- | im... | heresie-dabord wrote: | This passage is a good summary: | | "Facebook is not a giant right-wing echo chamber. But it does | contain a giant right-wing echo chamber -- a kind of AM talk | radio built into the heart of Facebook's news ecosystem, with | a hyper-engaged audience of loyal partisans who love liking, | sharing and clicking on posts from right-wing pages, many of | which have gotten good at serving up Facebook-optimized | outrage bait at a consistent clip." | | And then there is the advertising profit that these | enthusiasts of the absurd generate for the corporation. What | former US President DJT called, "the golden goose". | [deleted] | fossuser wrote: | > "These people, most of whom would speak only anonymously | because they were not authorized to discuss internal | conversations, said Facebook's executives were more worried | about fixing the perception that Facebook was amplifying | harmful content than figuring out whether it actually was | amplifying harmful content." | | I don't work at FB, but I suspect this is bullshit. | WalterBright wrote: | Predictably, Roose is only concerned about right wing opinions. | samizdis wrote: | Also, HN thread with 50 comments about that Roose column: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27834324 | cs702 wrote: | It's not so much that the key people at the top of Facebook "see | no evil," but that they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there | is no evil to be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, | sincerely, earnestly believe they can subdue it with great | engineering and great management. | | They fail to see what every outsider, and many insiders, clearly | see. Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair: | | _It is difficult to get people to see something if their wealth, | status, and self-worth depend upon not seeing it._ | JKCalhoun wrote: | > they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to | be seen | | Truly? Sincerely? Earnestly? All that? | | I must be a lot more cynical than you. I think they absolutely | know the score. I think they sincerely would rather not be | painted with the brush of accountability, would prefer | deniability. | ellyagg wrote: | I think it's more that city folk truly, sincerely, earnestly | believe country folk are evil, and the fact that Facebook is | not programmatically and automatically squashing country folk | speech just because city folk want them to annoys city folk. | [deleted] | eggsmediumrare wrote: | I'm "country folk" and have never experienced this kind of | attitude from "city folk" on the basis of my address. | | Then again, I do truly, sincerely, earnestly believe the | enablers like Fox News, the GOP, et cetera are evil. The | people who listen to them aren't evil, just deceived. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Indeed. So-called "country folk" are a serious minority, | and if the right in the US had to rely on rural voters | exclusively for support they'd never win an election. | | For sure, there's a right wing voting block that might | _see_ itself as "salt of the earth" or "country folk" or | "common sense"; but it's just an ideological package held | together with shoestring and old gum made out of old school | nativism, pro-life stuff, and an appeal to a sense of lost | opportunity. | | And I grew up in rural Alberta, Canada, oil country | heartland of "country folk" in Canada, the Texas of Canada, | and I live rural now, too. It's never been the case that | all "country folk" vote right or hold right wing opinions, | even if a sizable chunk do. | | I do think "city folk" hold some pretty stereotyped views | of rural life though. | [deleted] | heavyset_go wrote: | > _they truly, sincerely, earnestly believe there is no evil to | be seen, or if there is any evil, they truly, sincerely, | earnestly believe they can subdue it with great engineering and | great management._ | | That's hard to believe when they've responded to international | catastrophes that they had a role in like this[1], and admitted | this themselves[2]: | | > _Facebook admits it was used to 'incite offline violence' in | Myanmar_ | | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar- | facebo... | | [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 | cs702 wrote: | My perception is that they think they can "fix" these | horrifying problems with cleverer software, better policies, | and new procedures _without_ negatively altering or impacting | the giant gush of money that flows into the company every | day. | seppin wrote: | They can't. There is a direct line between the coercive | brand of discourse they promote and higher engagement/ad | revenue. | benjaminjosephw wrote: | That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to | malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". | | Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and | human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is | unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are | and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. | In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity. | irrational wrote: | I'd say more pride than malice. | r00fus wrote: | Hanlon's Razor has a counter law, Gray's Law (or Clark's | Law): | | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable | from malice". | | If responsible people are blind to the problem, and claim | incompetence, they're probably profiting from it. | cs702 wrote: | It's not stupidity, I think, but wishful thinking and | unconscious self-deception motivated by profit: | | "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained | by wishful thinking and unconscious self-deception motivated | by profit." | cmrdporcupine wrote: | It's what is called "ideology" in critical theory & | Marxism. Thought shaped by way of class position; aka | people "think with their stomachs." Not always, but on the | whole, the majority of people will adopt the world view | that keeps them fed/wealthy/powerful/happy. | war1025 wrote: | It's weird to think of Facebook as the reasonable people in the | room. | | The left wants to own online political discussion in the US, | and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready | audience when they are allowed to compete. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around down | there in the US. What is being called "left" in that context | is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and it has | wanted to own political discussion in the US in some form or | another for over a century. It's right of centre and frankly | conservative on fundamental economics issues [i.e. where all | the power is held], and could only be called "left" in the | domain of cultural issues... | | Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US discourse, | just stuff around the margins which is not threatening to | corporate power (identity politics, maybe some health care | reform). | | I remain flabbergasted by the increasing number of people who | can somehow in the same breath complain about "radical | socialists" and "cultural marxists" while at the same time | somehow equating those people with "corporate elites" and | "silicon valley" -- the two are the enemy of the other. | | EDIT: as a person with actual radical socialist politics, I | can assure you that both Facebook and the NYT want nothing to | do with my views. | walkedaway wrote: | > Actual socialist politics are not permitted in US | discourse | | We have multiple socialists elected to US Congress. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | If you want to call them that, sure. | triceratops wrote: | Democratic socialism isn't anywhere near the same as the | Cuba/Venezuela/USSR type of socialism. Are any | politicians of the latter stripe currently in Congress? | | Like I get that there's a popular meme that taxes and | government services are "socialism". But that's a wildly | inaccurate boogeyman conjured up by people who really, | really don't want to pay taxes. (No one wants to pay | taxes, but most of us accept they're the cost of having a | society) | | If taxes that fund government services are "socialist" | then having a police force is "socialist" too. Do you | agree with that? It sounds ridiculous to me but that's | where that logic leads. | bronzeage wrote: | As someone with socialistic world views who knows how much | those world views would have hurt corporations, don't you | wonder how come all the corporations still promote "left" | democratic politicians? | | Maybe one day you'll realize all there is too find in the | left side is corrupt politicians which, powered by the | media, send all those who would have normally oppose them | on irrelevant wild goose chases of identity politics? | | Don't you wonder how come Bernie keeps on losing the | primaries every time, even against Biden which came in 5th | place in the Iowa primaries? | | You need to wake up and realize what matters isn't whether | a politician is left or right, but whether he's corrupt or | not. All you needed to know who's more corrupt, Biden or | Trump, you could see from who were the major donors. By the | way, as corruption grows, it's more likely that the media | is sided with the corrupt side. So it's better picking | whoever the media hates. | tablespoon wrote: | >> The left wants to own online political discussion in the | US, and they are very bothered that the right finds a ready | audience when they are allowed to compete. | | > That's a very odd definition of "left" floating around | down there in the US. What is being called "left" in that | context is nothing but neo-liberal centrist politics, and | it has wanted to own political discussion in the US in some | form or another for over a century. | | I don't think that's the "left" the GP was referring to. I | think were most likely talking about the "culture war" | left. | | > I remain flabbergasted by the increasing number of people | who can somehow in the same breath complain about "radical | socialists" and "cultural marxists" while at the same time | somehow equating those people with "corporate elites" and | "silicon valley" -- the two are the enemy of the other. | | It's because we don't always get to control definitions, | even ones we care a lot about (ask me about "crypto" | sometime). IMHO, those are both fashionable (in some | circles) new terms for the "culture war" left, somewhat | inflected by plutocratic interests that harness opposition | to it to further their own agenda. | | Edit: IMHO, I think a flag-waving socially-conservative | socialism could be surprisingly successful in America, if | someone could get it off the ground. | war1025 wrote: | > IMHO, I think a flag-waving socially-conservative | socialism could be surprisingly successful in America, if | someone could get it off the ground. | | I think that's basically Trump's base to be honest. | Politicians just haven't figured out how to wrangle them | into something useful. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | I think I agree with you (and actually prefer not to use | the term "left" myself in general for this reason), but I | still think it's worth underscoring the points about the | incoherence of the use of these terms. Someone on a hobby | group I am on the other day started ranting about how | rising fire insurance rates for farmers were _" Just | another step to push out the middle class and independent | owners to make way for big corporate ownership."_ [ok | fine, whatever] and then suffixed it with _" The United | Socialist States of America"_ [W the actual F? Makes zero | sense]. | | I see this kind of talk from people with Q & Trump- | inflected politics all the time. It's bizarre. | eggsmediumrare wrote: | No one is talking about censoring arguments about what | constitutes reasonable levels of immigration, or whether the | government is spending too much, or what rights states should | have vs federal gov. IE conservative policy positions. The | divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent election | fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. | throwitaway1235 wrote: | So liberals get to pick the political arguments humans get | to talk about? You may support that type of social | conversation, but don't call it democracy, because it's | not. | splitstud wrote: | It's good that we're only talking about censoring things | you don't agree with. | throwawayboise wrote: | This is just saying "as long as I get to define what is | reasonable, we can have a reasonable debate about anything" | AuryGlenz wrote: | This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak | "conspiracy" was censored the same way. | | Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it | enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people | shouldn't be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The | only way we can have trust in our election process is if we | can ask questions. | stouset wrote: | > To say that people shouldn't be able to discuss it is | mind-boggling to me. | | This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing | perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss | election fraud. | | The argument--which I'm sure you are actually aware--is | that there needs to be some level of credibility to the | idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in | meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, | cost, and effort in investigating claims. | | Simply having lost is not a credible claim to investigate | widespread fraud. Finding one or two isolated cases in | elections with margins of thousands or more votes is not | a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. | | Further, fraud cannot simply be a claim that is made and | then perpetually reinvestigated by decreasingly-reputable | third parties until you are able to invalidate an | election whose outcome you disagree with. | war1025 wrote: | > This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing | perspective. | | I think that's currently how the game is played. You can | try to be better than that, but then the other side wins | because they are still happy to play dirty. | ipaddr wrote: | Stopping people talking about election fraud because you | don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is | censorship. | | Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with | shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being | afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't | speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your | gatekeeping rules have been met. | stouset wrote: | > Stopping people talking about election fraud because | you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is | censorship. | | Zero people are being stopped from talking about election | fraud. You and I are sitting here discussion election | fraud right now. The only thing that has been stopped is | _investigations_ of claims of widespread fraud for which | there is virtually zero evidence. | | This is precisely the kind of wild misrepresentation that | people--including myself--are tired of fighting. If you | need to misrepresent your opponent in order to defeat | them, maybe you should reflect: _are we the baddies?_ | dnissley wrote: | > This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing | perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss | election fraud. | | The comment 2 levels up by eggsmediumrare seems to be | arguing exactly that. | fidesomnes wrote: | But that is exactly what happens. 5 billionaires control | the majority of online social media content. | user-the-name wrote: | Those actual lies are the right-wing position now. If you | attack lies, right-wingers will say you are attacking them. | throwitaway1235 wrote: | You call opinions you disagree with lies. | pault wrote: | Incidents of voter fraud, and side effects from vaccines, | etc are quantifiable, therefore not subject to opinion. | Interpretation yes, but interpretation must be supported | by evidence. | user-the-name wrote: | Yes, there we go: This reaction, when calling it obvious | and blatant lies. Every time. Believing in lies is now | normal and expected of right-wingers, and calling it out | is called attacking political opinions. | | It's not. It's lies. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I see you point. But using "right-wingers" is a tell of | sorts. It makes you appear dismissive of the opposing | viewpoint. | | But otherwise I agree: there is such a thing as truth and | there are out and out lies. | | I hope that my views are based on truths but I recognize | that there are areas that while true are nuanced enough | that someone else can come to a different conclusion than | me. For this reason I don't claim that everyone with a | different view is backing their view with lies. | | Sometimes though, some of them are. | user-the-name wrote: | I _am_ dismissive. Because the opposing viewpoint is | _believing literal lies_. Of course I will dismiss that. | Everyone should. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Well, they're the position of the most vocal and nutty | segment of the right wing. Trying to paint the entire | right with it is dishonest (whether accidentally or | deliberately). | | I will admit that the nutty ones get all the media | attention at the moment. (You can decide whether or not | you believe that's the _media_ trying to paint the entire | right that way...) | cmrdporcupine wrote: | They're not only getting all the media attention at the | moment but _they are holding all the power in the GOP at | the moment_. Especially in places like Florida. | war1025 wrote: | > The divide is on topics like anti-vax, nonexistent | election fraud, et cetera. IE, actual lies. | | It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so | against people wanting a say over what goes into their | bodies. I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's | reasonable to let individuals make that choice. | | Also regarding election fraud, when on election night you | see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, it is | entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those people | then asked for audits and were told to go to hell. If you | want to undermine trust in the election system, that is | exactly how to accomplish it. | | None of this is "you aren't allowed to lie" it's "You | aren't allowed to ask questions" | | [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/politics/us/2020/michi | gan-w... | skinkestek wrote: | Exactly this. | | Again, I don't believe there was widespread fraud but | people who refuse to discuss what happened and refuse | inspections sure aren't helping us becomong more | confident. | seppin wrote: | > I am personally vaccinated, but I think it's reasonable | to let individuals make that choice. | | A virus doesn't infect you and stop, it uses your body to | infect others. Public health is the opposite of "my body | my choice". | | A simple enough distinction to make if you care to do so. | jhgb wrote: | > It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so | against people wanting a say over what goes into their | bodies. | | Public health is public health, not purely your business. | | > I am personally vaccinated, | | Good on you! | | > but I think it's reasonable to let individuals make | that choice. | | No, it's not and if you don't see why then you have a | major problem with understanding modern medicine. | bigtex1988 wrote: | Last I checked, pregnancy isn't contagious. Not exactly | an apples to apples comparison. | | Who was told to "go to hell"? There were plenty of | recounts in all of the close states. Even the recent | farcical commission checking fraud in Arizona didn't find | anything. | | As to the "spike" in that picture, a simple Google search | of "Michigan spike voting" produces plenty of resources | showing how the "spike" was not fraud. And if you're so | worried about the spike in Biden votes later in the | process, why are you not also worried about the spike in | Trump votes at Nov 3 21:00 (on the graph on the right)? | | You're being downvoted because these arguments are so bad | as to almost clearly be in bad faith. | war1025 wrote: | > You're being downvoted because these arguments are so | bad as to almost clearly be in bad faith. | | I'm being downvoted because some subset of people here | view down vote as "I disagree". I used to be bothered by | it. I don't think much about it anymore. | | Edit: | | I'm also fairly certain I've got some followers who take | it upon themselves to go through my comment history and | start downvoting other posts of mine just for good | measure. You know, really sticking it to the man or | whatever. | stouset wrote: | I downvoted you. Not because I disagree, but because I | too believe your arguments are in bad faith and/or | misrepresenting the positions of those you disagree with. | | > It's funny that the party of "my body my choice" is so | against people wanting a say over what goes into their | bodies. | | Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take | pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of | zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into | vaccination against their will. The one potential | exception to this is for entry to public schooling, for | which religious exemptions are (generally but not always) | easy to come by. | | If not bad faith or misrepresentation, then what? | | > Also regarding election fraud, when on election night | you see charts like [1] with enormous one party spikes, | it is entirely natural for people to be suspicious. Those | people then asked for audits and were told to go to hell. | | It is reasonable for people to be suspicious. But far | from being told to go to hell, people have been given | repeated and convincing evidence for why these spikes | occur (blue votes tending to cluster in high-density, | high-population districts). There was even ample | discussion _in advance of the election_ about how, where, | and when we expected these spikes to occur, why they 're | expected, and demonstrating their historical precedent. | | Some people still demanded investigations of fraud. Most | of those claims were dismissed through official processes | due to lack of evidence. Being denied an investigation | into claims that have been repeatedly debunked is not | being told to go to hell. In fact some of those claims | _were_ investigated, but essentially zero systemic fraud | has been found to date. | | If not bad faith or misrepresentation, then what? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > Unlike anti-abortion laws which force women to take | pregnancies to term against their will, I am aware of | zero proposed legislation that aims to force people into | vaccination against their will. | | Just _this week_ , Biden was talking about having people | go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the shot. | Arizona publicly told him to get bent - they weren't | going to do that in their state. | | So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too close for | my taste. I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine | with the state sending people door to door to push those | who were pregnant to carry to term. | s5300 wrote: | I'm gonna guess that you're unaware of the states/large | regions in which military recruiters go door to door, | constantly send mail, and come to public schools in an | effort to recruit kids. | | Why is there no uproar about this after decades of it...? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Maybe you shouldn't guess what I'm aware of. | stouset wrote: | > Just this week, Biden was talking about having people | go door-to-door to push the unvaccinated to get the | shot... So, that's not "forcing" people, but it's too | close for my taste. | | Can you acknowledge that--even taking this completely at | face value--going door-to-door encouraging the use of a | vaccine has absolutely nothing in common with legally | forcing women to take unwanted pregnancies to term, | regardless of which side of either policy you care to | take? | | This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trying to draw | parallels between these two situations is absurd to the | point of bad faith or willful misrepresentation. | | > I'm going to presume that you wouldn't be fine with the | state sending people door to door to push those who were | pregnant to carry to term. | | For reasons completely independent of "my body, my | choice" which was the original goalpost. | | This is an issue of public health for which we had to | globally shut down international travel and social | gatherings for a year and a half, and which had | incalculable economic impact on billions. Can you also | acknowledge that such consequences might perhaps clear a | higher bar than that of a choice whose impact is | fundamentally limited in scope? | | Recognizing that difference in impact is why we've spent | $20bn on vaccine development and who knows how much on | the actual vaccine rollout. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > Can you also acknowledge that such consequences might | perhaps clear a higher bar than that of a choice whose | impact is fundamentally limited in scope? | | "Fundamentally limited"? Given that a fetus is | genetically human, and genetically different from the | woman who carries it, it's clearly both human and not | part of her body. There are plenty of completely | reasonable people who see those two facts as putting | abortion as being perilously close to murder, at best. | | First, given that it's genetically a different | individual, "my body, my choice" seems willfully blind to | the rest of what's involved in abortion. Second, though, | if you _do_ regard abortion as murder, the death count | per year is of the same order of magnitude as from Covid. | So "fundamentally limited in scope" is assuming the | answer to something that is, at best, very much still in | debate. | skinkestek wrote: | You mean the recent very secure elections where 120 000 | test votes snuck in? | | The very secure elections that are so secure in some | counties that nobody is allowed to verify? | | I don't think there was substantial election fraud but I | must say America keeps trying to convince me otherwise. | | Couple this with media who is unable or unwilling to tell | us what is done to prevent fraud (the only thing I have | actually learned was from someone here on HN who served at | a voting center and had a very good explanation). | | For the record: I don't think there was election _fraud_ | but I do think that if major media and tech companies had | pushed Trump the way they pushed Biden there had been well | deserved outcry. | | Personally I like Biden more than Trump but that doesn't | mean the election wasn't ugly. | bigtex1988 wrote: | Are you talking about the same "recent very secure | elections" where the processes in place worked as | intended? Those test votes were found and were taken out, | specifically because there are processes in place to | check and double-check and triple-check the count. | | America does not keep trying to convince you that there | is "substantial election fraud". It is clearly one | political party and their friends at Fox News that are | trying to convince you of this. Reality is the antidote | to their poison. | fidesomnes wrote: | The very secure elections that 6 states had to _stop | counting votes for_ , at nearly the same time, and leave | everyone wondering what was happening for weeks until | they got the votes they wanted. | ffggvv wrote: | why is it anyone else's business to see that data? why would they | be entitled to? so they can whinge and ask fb to censor more | content? | | i could see an argument for saying they should provide users more | data about their own posts. but not aggregate data about their | platform that will just be used against them | throwitaway1235 wrote: | The moment liberals got in bed with technology corporations they | almost immediately requested opposition views be scrubbed from | the internet. It reveals how weak their ideas are. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | What is also interesting is the motivation of the people wanting | to use CrowdTangle, etc to see the list of top posts. | | My guess, is that it less about learning what is the top post, | but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure | Facebook to censor content they don't like. | tablespoon wrote: | > ...but more about using that information as a way to try to | pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like. | | That's far too simplistic of a take. Facebook and social media | amplifying partisan shit-stirrers and misinformation over more | sober voices should be seen as a serious issue, regardless of | your ideological commitments. | rscoots wrote: | Who at Facebook do you trust to decide who is a "sober voice" | that will be artificially promoted after the organically | popular are censored? | | What is this person's qualifications? | | How can they be held to account when they inevitably get it | wrong? | | Where will the highly-transparent write-up detailing this | decision making be published? | | Before these Q's are answered I don't want FB touching their | algorithms at all. | sp332 wrote: | More fundamentally than asking for censorship is holding | Facebook accountable for what content they are promoting. | They've been caught multiple times allowing Ben Shapiro's page | to break the rules that other pages have to follow [0]. They | also keep claiming that they don't favor right-leaning content. | Maybe this should be regulated or not, but at least we can call | them out for lying about it. | | [0] https://popular.info/p/facebook-admits-ben-shapiro-is- | breaki... | hoopleh wrote: | What a trash media outlet. | | Btw Shapiro isn't really liked in the MAGA movement, he's | considered establishment, a grifter, and a neocon. That being | said, nothing he says is bigoted or racist, you just disagree | with it. Learn to recognize that and we can all talk like | adults again. Shouting racism just divides. | throwaway4dang1 wrote: | What a trash media outlet. | | Btw Shapiro isn't really liked in the MAGA movement, he's | considered establishment, a grifter, and a neocon. That being | said, nothing he says is bigoted or racist, you just disagree | with it. Learn to recognize that and we can all talk like | adults again. Shouting racism just divides. | fossuser wrote: | For people that are genuinely interested in this - I'd highly | recommend Steven Levy's book: Facebook The Inside Story. | | It's a fair account without a political bent (really hard to find | on this topic) and he had a lot of access to FB leadership while | writing it. It also gives a lot of historical context. | | WRT the specific outreach metrics mentioned in the article - I'd | bet the internal discussion is more nuanced. Making that public | could make it harder for them to control abuse by making it | easier for people to determine how to maximize reach with | spammier hacks. This is already a problem without access to the | data. | | My personal opinion is this is a hard problem at scale and that | Zuckerberg genuinely cares about it [0]. That there is some | incentive mismatch given the issues around engagement driving ad | revenue, but that the speech issues are more complicated and Zuck | cares about how they leverage their power around issues of | speech. My take on the Trump ban was less that he changed his | position and more that the US no longer met the requirements for | a hands-off approach after the insurrection. | | Rather than rehash the stuff I wrote in the post, here's the | relevant bit: | | > "If there's to be policy around political speech and social | media, it should not be the responsibility of private companies | to determine when to censor or not censor the speech from | democratically elected politicians, operating in countries with | rule of law and a free press. | | > "There are a lot of conditions on that statement, but it's | because the conditions are relevant and important. The same | standard cannot be automatically held for politicians in non- | democratic countries, countries without rule of law, countries | that suppress speech themselves, or countries without a free | press." | | ... | | > "It doesn't mean they're not doing anything wrong because | they've long ago abandoned the chronological news feed in favor | of an algorithmically sorted news feed focused on engagement. | This is decidedly not neutral. Abuse of these engagement | algorithms are what allowed spammers to leverage the viral nature | of misinformation to enrich themselves. It's also what gave | credibility and reach to the Russian political interference. If | Facebook wants to act as a neutral platform for speech, then they | should be neutral. If they are elevating certain content | algorithmically then they are acting as a publisher. This weakens | their argument about being a neutral platform and makes them more | responsible for what they choose to elevate on Facebook." | | There's probably reasonable policy here - but it's not trivial. | | [0]: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg- | and-f... | mullingitover wrote: | I think the real problem that facebook leadership sees isn't that | they're amplifying overly partisan posters, but that the | popularity of these posters demonstrates that their userbase is | increasingly low rent and heading toward an AOL/Yahoo style long | goodbye. | xmprt wrote: | Their solution to this is VR which is really smart but who know | if it's too little, too late. | mullingitover wrote: | The VR stuff has the same energy as "The Titanic's crew has | announced the installation of an amazing collection of trendy | new Louis Vuitton deck chairs with an exciting new | arrangement, and insists that the minor iceberg collision | will be resolved soon." | jmcgough wrote: | Their solution to an aging userbase is buying out competitors | (instagram, whatsapp) to prevent them from overtaking FB. | | FB bought Oculus because they're beholden to Apple and Google | in the mobile space; if VR is the next major platform (Zuck | thought it was 10 years away in 2015) and Oculus is the | market leader, it weakens Apple/Google's control on them. | clairity wrote: | no, their problem is simply greed. zuckerberg, sandberg, et al. | want money, status, and power, and as long as they can distract | from losing (or slowing down gains of) any of those by blaming | problems on those bad users (or anything else), they're fat and | happy. | | the leadership is the problem. from a systemic perspective, | it's incentives (borne of societally-mediated values). you | don't change systems by treating symptoms, but rather the | incentives. | hugosbaseball wrote: | "Leadership" (ie officers) serve at the pleasure of the | board, who are elected by shareholders. | | Facebook intentionally focuses attention on Zuckerberg. "By | all means, pump out memes about Android Zuck. Pay no | attention to the inherent evil in our business model that | cannot be fixed without destroying the company, or the | shareholders behind the curtain who will keep right on | pushing that business model because it makes them piles of | cash." | mullingitover wrote: | That's where the attention belongs, Zuckerberg has | controlling interest[1]: | | > According to an estimate from CNBC last year, that means | Zuckerberg and insiders control about 70 percent of | Facebook's voting shares, with Zuckerberg controlling about | 60 percent. So whatever shareholders are voting on, | Zuckerberg and those closest to him get to have the final | say. | | So the rest of the "leadership" are effectively | Zuckerberg's proxies. Absolutely nothing Facebook does is | beyond his control. | | [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/30/18644755/facebook- | stock... | potatolicious wrote: | It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's | effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: | | - "tech has a causal effect on society" | | - "society has a causal effect on tech, tech is a mirror" | | At this point it seems pretty patently obvious that the reality | is _both_? Technology is subject to pre-existing flaws in | society, but also has the capability to amplify and worsen it. | | > the popularity of these posters demonstrates that their | userbase is increasingly low rent | | It's worth considering if _exposure to FB_ is what is causing | the userbase increasingly "low rent". Yeah, FB didn't invent | partisanship, misinformation, nor authoritarianism, but I think | likely it is worsening it. | mullingitover wrote: | > Yeah, FB didn't invent partisanship, misinformation, nor | authoritarianism, but I think likely it is worsening it. | | Absolutely, Zuckerberg is basically a younger, less human | version of Rupert Murdoch. He's going where the money takes | him, and he's happy to exploit a profitable niche. My point | though is that it's increasingly clear that Facebook's | audience is becoming just that, an _aging_ niche, and that 's | not a great place to be for a social media platform. We know | what happens to those. | | Just like Rupert Murdoch's various tabloids, exposure does | indeed affect the consumers of that media, and it becomes an | ouroboros of tabloid-type hysteria. I don't think _that 's_ | what bothers facebook though, just the fact that this type of | niche audience is a loser in the long run. | ksec wrote: | >It's frustrating that the discussion around technology's | effects on society is still stuck between the extremes of: | | It is not just tech. It is pretty much everything else on the | internet and media. No one is telling me the pros and cons | anymore. After I read the pros I have to go and dig up my own | list of cons or vice versa. No one is finishing the sentence | with "having said that" and round off with some counter | argument. Most are so consumed by their own ideology they | fail to see anything else. | | >It's worth considering if exposure to FB is what is causing | the userbase increasingly "low rent". Yeah, FB didn't invent | partisanship, misinformation, nor authoritarianism, but I | think likely it is worsening it. | | I would argue had any other Social Network raised instead of | Facebook during the Web 2.0 era the effect would had been the | same. I once try to make a smaller social network to force an | opposite view on their feeds to try and balance things. | _Holly mother of god_ the backlash were _insane_. My | conclusion was that this sort of extremism is a function of | human nature. Before social media people would buy news paper | they prefer or fit their own ideology. | | _" The only way to understand the Press is to remember that | they pander to their readers' prejudices."_ | | - Sir Humphrey Appleby | | Internet "press" is no different to press in the 80s. Only at | a much greater scale and fully automatic. | grrrrrrreat wrote: | | "The only way to understand the Press is to remember that | they pander to their readers' prejudices." | | Its mind boggling how much of that show is still relevant | today. | esotericimpl wrote: | This I think is the ultimate problem that will lead to | facebooks downfall as a successful platform. Say what you will | about the right wing echo chamber on facebook but the bottom | line is that 70% of the GDP of this country was in "blue | counties" won by Biden. If facebook continues going down this | engagement path they're going to end up right where Yahoo ended | up. With a bunch of poor losers using their platform and not | the wealthy consumers of America. | varelse wrote: | I suspect if they provided telemetry into the Facebook Zeitgeist, | it would show its userbase to be terrifyingly stupid and | superstitious folk on par with the late Carl Sagan's predictions | in _The Demon Haunted World_. | | For IMO the Google Zeitgeist was bad enough 10 years ago in a | somewhat simpler time when we could still laugh at stupidity and | ludicrous conspiracies, but stupidity is a major influencer on | social media now that it has been monetized and drives revenue. I | don't see a solution to that any time soon. | the_optimist wrote: | Please tell us more about how telemetry can reveal the moral | and intellectual value of a human being. | fedreserved wrote: | Outside of a diary, or a brain implant where I saw and felt | everything the other person felt, I cant think of a better | tool to tell the moral and intellectual value or a human | being then telemetry. It's not definitive, but as a data | point it could be powerful depending on what you are trying | to evaluate | jozvolskyef wrote: | You are making a straw man argument by assuming that GP | claims they can infer individual-level attributes from | telemetry while all they claim is to infer population-level | attributes. | Miraste wrote: | How could it not? What you click on, what you look at, what | you read and for how long, what you write, where you go, what | you buy, how you feel, what you like and dislike, who you | know, who you talk to, what sites you visit... Facebook knows | many of its users (and non-users) better than they know | themselves. | hammock wrote: | So my moral value is based on what I read? If I read the | wrong thing I might as well be second-class citizen? | thereisnospork wrote: | Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value | on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) | | Trivially: someone who reads NRA's weekly newsletter | religiously is more likely to be pro gun, pro republican, | and pro 'life', for instance | rayiner wrote: | Everyone is superstitious some people are just in denial. | It wasn't an accident that progressive ideology went down | the eugenics path, or that countries like China engaged | in things like the one child policy. Atheist | utilitarianism freed of superstition can justify a lot. | As against it, you can repackage the concept of "the | inherent dignity of every human life in the eyes of god" | into a variety of secular packagings but that doesn't | make it any less superstitious. | [deleted] | scarecrowbob wrote: | But that's -not- trivially true. | | My politics are idiosyncratic and lean far enough to the | left that I have a hard time explaining them to my | centrist liberal friends. | | At the same time, I read a lot of far-right sources; I do | not find them at all compelling, but in addition to the | fact that I like to know what the people who think I am a | literal baby-blood-drinking demon might be up to, I have | an MA in rhetoric and find the discourse to be as | engaging as stuff like William Burroughs or The | Illuminatus Trilogy... | | And I am not alone in that. You simply can't divine much | of anything based on their search history and reading | list, and that's made even more difficult by the | compartmentalization that some of us are using | in0-browser to work against tracking. | AlexandrB wrote: | This kind of thinking completely discards the concept of | intent. People read things for all kinds of reasons. I | have a family member who was an avid reader of the | "Weekly World News", yet he did not believe in aliens, | "Bat Boy", or the illuminati. I used to regularly read | conservative blogs and listen to Fox News to keep up with | what people I disagree with are doing/saying. | | So the problem is that you can make some statistical | predictions about what someone's views are based on their | reading habits. But you can't _morally_ judge them on | that basis because you don 't (and can't) know why they | read something and what they thought about it. This is | similar to how BMI is commonly misused. BMI is a fine | indicator of population health, but is not always | indicative of individual health. | thereisnospork wrote: | You need to define a confidence interval for 'know'. We | as a society judge and condemn people without 100% | certainty as a matter of course. Both at a personal level | and systematically, e.g. the judicial system. | | To your example of BMI, it would be a perfectly | reasonable public health policy[0] to use machine | learning to probabilistically identify persons of an | excess BMI to send them pamplets and resources for weight | loss / exercise. Will the odd fit person get a letter | from the surgeon general telling them "being a fatass is | bad for their health"[1]? Of course. I don't see why that | is a terminal problem. | | [0]If a bit creepy for the privacy aspects - which are | out of scope here. | | [1]In far more words than is necessary, of course | throwawayboise wrote: | I would not be a perfectly reasonable public health | policy to do what you suggest, it would be a waste of | time and money. Everybody knows that being fat is | unhealthy. The people who are fat and not doing anything | about it just don't care, or have other priorities. | varelse wrote: | Or they have a story far more complicated than what have | you have reduced them to being. Just attempting to manage | the pandemic in the US has demonstrated how complicated | and contradictory people turn out to be. But I do agree | that pamphlets about BMI aren't likely to change their | outlook. They each need their own personalized moments of | clarity about their path and it's not all a sure thing | they ever have theirs. | | But also, a few people are obese because they are on | steroids or they have some genetic issue independent of | their choices in life. They are not the norm, but they'll | get lumped in with the norm and that's offensive and | improper. That said, if FB found out their userbase is | unusually obese compared to the rest of a country's | citizens, that informs them they have a potential moral | hazard in their hands. | | But if you're deeply offended at such telemetry, maybe | consider no using Facebook. You'll be fine without it. I | personally make sure to post ridiculous and contradictory | responses to the insipidly and horribly targeted ads they | push into my feed. Some of them have gotten me suspended | for violating their "community standards" that IMO would | not get me suspended anywhere else. | varelse wrote: | You're using outliers to invalidate far more accurate | predictions of the ensemble. You're right about people | like yourself. IMO they are not the norm. Most "Weekly | World News" readers are, I suspect, far more gullible | than you. And far more Fox News viewers agree with their | talking points and agenda than disagree or they wouldn't | be watching, also IMO. | autoexec wrote: | > So the problem is that you can make some statistical | predictions about what someone's views are based on their | reading habits. But you can't morally judge them on that | basis | | Companies are making these kinds of flawed assumptions | about you and every one of us every single day. They | often then sell that info to data brokers who happily | sell that data to others who will then start with | incorrect assumptions about you as an individual and let | that influence how they interpret the rest of the data | they collect about you. | | It's a real problem because those flawed data sets you | aren't allowed to see, contest, or update are | increasingly being used to meaningfully impact your | everyday life in ways that you'll never be aware of. | | The bottom line is that companies don't care. If they | will make more money by being right _most_ of the time | that 's what they are going to do. You might be the | fittest, healthiest person on Earth, but if your health | insurance company sees that people in your area code have | started buying fast food more often they can decide to | raise your rates. They won't tell you why they did it. | They'll just do it. You could be the most financially | responsible person on Earth but if you live in the wrong | zip code don't be surprised when you get denied certain | services or told that a company's polices are one thing | when they would have told you they were something else if | you lived on the other side of town. | | That said, it's probably a whole lot easier to make | accurate predictions about people than you think. Sure | you'd read fox news, but _most_ of your time is probably | not spent on right wing sites, you probably aren 't | leaving comments espousing right wing talking points, and | you probably aren't donating money to right wing causes. | | With enough data it's not that hard to figure out if | you're regularly hanging out at stormfront because you're | working for the Anti-Defamation League or because you're | a racist. | | Algorithms can detect (and exploit) mental illnesses like | bipolar disorder and Alzheimer's companies can certainly | detect "stupid" well enough for their own needs. | Miraste wrote: | This is a common mistake people make when thinking about | marketing data analysis. It's similar to bits of entropy | in browser tracking - the resolution of your screen and | the fonts you have installed don't identify you by | themselves, but when they're correlated their | effectiveness scales much better than human intuition | estimates. | | So you read conservative blogs and listen to Fox News. If | Facebook is predicting, for instance, your voting habits, | their algorithm won't look only at that. It'll look at | where you live, what your job is, the political stances | of the people you most associate with, which groups | you're a part of and how their members typically lean, | what stores you shop at, what search terms you use, and | far more metrics than I can list here. Can you honestly | say that _all_ of those will point to incorrect | conclusions? If you somehow live a live entirely contrary | to your internal beliefs you 're in a minority so small | as to be irrelevant. | hammock wrote: | >Do you think what a person reads has no predictive value | on their 'moral value'? (An admittedly vague term) | | Yes, 100%. How can it, if we agree all human life is | sacred? Are some people more sacred than others? Holier | than thou? (getting downvoted for this) | | All men are created equal. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. | Ephesians 6:9 "Slave owners, you must treat your slaves | with this same respect. Don't threaten them. They have | the same Master in heaven that you do, and he doesn't | have favorites." | fossuser wrote: | You're getting downvoted because you're not arguing in | good faith. | splitstud wrote: | Please continue. Explain how those beliefs intersect with | moral value. | thereisnospork wrote: | Please explain how 'pro-life' isn't a moral position. | Isn't the position fairly summarized as: 'it is _immoral_ | to abort a pregnancy under <insert circumstances here>? | Emphasis mine. | the_optimist wrote: | Where exactly do you propose this intersects with the | concepts of "stupidity" and "superstition"? | ipaddr wrote: | It's easy to see how pro abortion can be a decision based | on money. So it might be considered a practical decision. | | The opposite position could be practical in certain | societies. A Mexican parent would encourage having the | baby. In other areas with more traditional values it | might be more practical. | | Whatever position you have could be moral or practical or | cyclical or spiritual. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | You are (perhaps intentionally) confusing correlation and | causation. You're also trying to transform a conversation | about predicting stupidity, gullibility, and superstition | into a conversation about whether some people are more | valuable than others because the latter argument is | easier to win. | the_optimist wrote: | What's causal? Can you predict "stupidity," for example, | based on telemetry data? | | Perhaps ______ skin-color, ______ descendent property | owners who own 5-6 acres southwest of the city in the | _____ zone, a couple of cows, read the _____, and are | hesitant allies of the revolution are "stupid"? | | Are you aware that efforts to characterize the thoughts | and minds of individuals based on their "telemetry data" | are associated with the most horrific, unspeakable crimes | against humanity that have occurred repeatedly in human | history? | webinvest wrote: | The answer to your question can be found by researching | the Cambridge Analytica MyPersonality tool scandals. | | It is a tool that I personally used and tested. I | wouldn't call it a scandal but I'd describe it as being | open to researchers and the general public, enormously | powerful, and accurate. It only became a scandal after | Steve Bannon's team of smart political researchers used | it with a high degree of effectiveness to get Trump into | the White House --- and the Democrats who were still | using weak user-data like race & ethnicity said hey | that's not fair! Essentially some researchers at | Cambridge had a large number of participants take a | personality test and click a button to share their FB | account data. The personality test measured 5 traits: | | 1) Openness | | 2) Conscientiousness | | 3) Extroversion | | 4) Agreeableness | | 5) Neuroticism | | Now based on our large sample size of personality test | takers, we can correlate that you or this Facebook user | you're studying has the following 5 personality traits | and they probably have the following oddly-specific | likes: ex: Anime, Lil Wayne, popping bubble wrap, Frosted | Mini Wheats, AK47s, anal sex, cheap beer, and the sweet | smell of air right before it rains. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | This is interesting, and I'd love to learn more about | your experience using it and what you were using it for. | the_optimist wrote: | You certainly didn't answer what's causal, nor capture | concepts such "terrifyingly stupid." | | Given substantial experience in data analytics, I also | don't believe in the slightest that Bannon's crack team | identified all the open-minded mini-wheaters and rode | that analysis to victory. That's absurd on its face but | probably sounds amazing to clueless people. | splitstud wrote: | Because said telemetry would be based on an assumption. | Said assumption is at the very heart of what we consider | morality. | samizdis wrote: | There's a piece by Cory Doctorow about this [1], which I found | interesting for its expansion into highighting FB's apparent beef | with Ad Observer [2]. I also like Doctorow's piece because he | used the word "flensed", which I don't think I've seen for years | but which, for some reason, I like. | | [1] https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/15/three-wise-zucks-in-a- | tre... | | [2] https://adobserver.org/ | zohch wrote: | What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying to | not see? And how would making reach data available make it easier | for Facebook to see evil? | | Or if Facebook is trying to hide the evil, what evil is it they | are trying to hide? What will the reach data reveal that is so | evil? And if the evil is manifest without reach data, why does it | matter? | Gunax wrote: | To understand the argument that 'facebook is evil' requires | more context than what is explicitly stated in this article. | It's more of a followup or continuation of a long running | thread. | | Basically there is a long thread about Facebook being a haven | for the worst qualities of human discussion: insular, | xenophobic, and reactionary. This started to get really big | during the Cambridge analytica scandel but has continued from | there. | | In short the argument is that Facebook knowingly allows the | aforementioned culture to manifest. In many parts of the world, | this has resulted in real world consequences and deaths. That | they refuse to divulge the most popular articles is, in this | authors mind, a sort of coverup. | | Personally I don't fully agree with this assessment. As | facebook has become more and more of 'the web', replacing the | distributed forums and chatrooms that once dominated, it's also | become a reflection of us. Facebook is in a bind no matter what | it does--it's either guilty of censorship or misinformation. | Hokusai wrote: | > What exactly is the evil that Facebook is supposedly trying | to not see? | | I see that you are new here, this is not Reddit. You should | read the linked article before posting, there you can find the | answer to this question and others. | | Be informed, be polite. | gunapologist99 wrote: | > I see that you are new here, this is not Reddit. | | It seemed like an honest question; this response may have | been a bit harsh to a newbie. (if it even really is a newbie | and not just a new account.) | | "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | Gunax wrote: | It would be nice if we all came to the same conclusions if we | just read the same material. But reality doesnt work that | way. | | Assuming we are just dolts who cannot read because we | disagree is a bit presumptuous. | zohch wrote: | I did read the article, twice. I can't figure it out. That is | why I asked. | | How is your response polite? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-15 23:01 UTC)