[HN Gopher] No More Apologies: Inside Facebook's Push to Defend ... ___________________________________________________________________ No More Apologies: Inside Facebook's Push to Defend Its Image Author : jaredwiener Score : 52 points Date : 2021-09-21 21:48 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com) | jasonhansel wrote: | Manipulating the News Feed to show users pro-Facebook articles | is...so obviously and blatantly unethical that I'm surprised so | many people were willing to authorize it. | enumjorge wrote: | As someone who works at a not-small tech company, I try to | practice the whole "people in glass houses shouldn't throw | stones". After all, most tech companies exhibit some behavior | that is objectionable. But Facebook... I honestly don't know | how their employees are comfortable working there. | redonkulus wrote: | Easy ... money | usernomdeguerre wrote: | and don't forget shelving their own comissioned reports that | didn't fall in line with the pro-facebook narrative: | | "Mr. Schultz argued that Facebook should publish its own | information about the site's most popular content rather than | supply access to tools like CrowdTangle, two people said. So in | June, the company compiled a report on Facebook's most-viewed | posts for the first three months of 2021. | | ... | | A day before the report's publication, Mr. Schultz was part of | a group that voted to shelve the document, according to the | emails." | fallingknife wrote: | But what company out there releases internal reports that | would not show it in a good light? Have you ever worked at a | company that just airs out its dirty laundry like that? This | is an unreasonable expectation that is applied to no other | company. | muchtolearn wrote: | It certainly feels like a hail Mary attempt to save their | image, especially given the recent media barrage. Anecdotally | at least, it feels like most of my friends who used the | platform 5 years ago are no longer active on it. | ahahahahah wrote: | What does that have to do with anything? That's not what's | described in the article. | | It's "an informational unit clearly marked as coming from | Facebook". It's similar to the units that facebook has for | vaccine information or voting information. | fallingknife wrote: | The traditional media is FB's competition, though. Why should a | company be obligated to host links to negative publicity paid | for by a competitor? I assume you don't think that the NYT | should be required to print anti NYT articles written by FB, | right? | saurik wrote: | The comment you responded to said "unethical"; there are many | things that are unethical that are not illegal (though I am | not claiming this should not be, as Facebook is supposedly | providing a communications platform here... but it doesn't | matter if it should or shouldn't be: ethics is not law). | fallingknife wrote: | You are right. But I don't think it's unethical either. | Just like I don't think it's unethical that the NYT doesn't | run anti NYT articles written by FB. | | edit: When it comes to censoring content by political | opinion, then I'm more towards the unethical side, but I | think it's a step to far to expect any company to allow | it's platform to be used to spread attack pieces against | itself. | ggggtez wrote: | The point is that Facebook publicly claims it's not a media | company. They do that to avoid government oversight. | | Once they are revealed to be acting like a media company, | it's a house of cards. Regulation presumably would follow. | mullingitover wrote: | It's really gotta sting when, as a young man, you create this | technological powerhouse only to be cursed to preside over its | decline into a malevolent, warmed-over AOL. | | I helped my mother fix her access to facebook and it's one of my | biggest regrets in life. She leaned hard into the covid | misinformation that facebook spreads, turned into a delusional | anti-vaxxer, and I can't help thinking that my innocently helping | her fix her account is ultimately going to lead to her death. | ggggtez wrote: | "These stupid mother fuckers trust me" - Mark Zuckerberg, about | Facebook users | | Don't forget for a moment that Mark Zuckerberg is a monster. | From the start he only cared about one thing: getting your | data. | jumelles wrote: | He's actively part of all of this. | | "But at least one of the decisions was driven by Mr. | Zuckerberg, and all were approved by him, three of the people | said." | | "Mr. Zuckerberg, who had become intertwined with policy issues | including the 2020 election, also wanted to recast himself as | an innovator, the people said. In January, the communications | team circulated a document with a strategy for distancing Mr. | Zuckerberg from scandals, partly by focusing his Facebook posts | and media appearances on new products, they said." | mandeepj wrote: | Zuck could become CIO (Chief innovation officer) for few | years, if he wants to disconnect from any FB negativity. | Jweb_Guru wrote: | And beyond that, we all know the story of how and why | Facebook was actually created. There was never any intent to | create something that would have a positive influence on the | world. I kind of doubt he's struggling much with his | conscience. | binkHN wrote: | > ...preside over its decline into a malevolent, warmed-over | AOL. | | Never thought of it this way. So spot on. The fact is Facebook | really is its own isolated and bastardized "Internet," and it's | so very AOL. | | Here's to the "all new" AOL! | germinalphrase wrote: | Would you find it unethical to - you know - unfix it? | strict9 wrote: | Can't imagine the guilt that comes with that situation, though | you definitely don't deserve it. | | I think the amount of vaccine misinformation propagated by | facebook will be the source of numerous reviews and studies in | the future. It's overwhelmingly sad to see so many people die | because they did not get vaccinated, presumably after being | influenced by fb misinformation and cable news pundits. | | As a side note, the content warnings of fb posts are almost | laughable, as most include this blurb: " _According to the | World Heath Organization_ " ... as though the WHO is reputable | in the eyes of those brainwashed by anti-vaccine propaganda. | fallingknife wrote: | Everyone here seems to think FB is some horrible, unethical | company, but what, exactly have they done? It seems to me that | all FB is is a platform that allows anyone to connect with and | talk to anyone else, post whatever they want, and it comes with | something similar to a Netflix recommendation algorithm that | guesses what other posts people will be most likely to want to | see. And, yes, this can have negative effects, but how is it FB's | responsibility if people want to see negative things and interact | negatively with other people? | cblconfederate wrote: | considering that, as is known, publishing negative stories about | facebook only makes them more popular, maybe they should start | publishing positive ones again? | fireball_blaze wrote: | https://archive.ph/NOssQ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-21 23:00 UTC)