Hacker News Reader

Comment by Maro | Hacker News Reader

Based on my brief time at FB (in 2016-2017), FB is not evil. MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. Using this as a major piece of positioning/propaganda is not going to work for Spiegel. Also, if they ever want to make money, they'll be playing the exact same game as FB. That's going to be tough, as by now Snapchat is just a feature (of FB). Also, I can tell you, FB employees are laser focused on executing and making a measurable impact (and getting a big bonus), there's no group therapy bitching. I don't have any love/hate for Snapchat, but it is going to be very tough for them. (I don't own either stock.)

View on HN

The correct phrase, IMO, would be "cumulative shadiness" for FB...

Individually, and within groups, the work of the employees and teams at FB is nothing short of amazing (and apple, google, etc)... cumulatively though? The nature of these companies are not in the best interests of individual users, and when looked at the power and impact the company as a whole has over any individual in specific, is pretty obviously not in the favor of the individual.

The only problem that I have with anything related to the internet reality, is that it is no longer possible to not be connected to it and have any modicum semblance of a modern existence.

I have a great time on FB/Messenger. It's a tool, it's up to everybody to use it in a way that is a net positive for them. I have friends/acquintances in 10+ cities, and it's a great way to keep in touch. As you mention, this "way" is very different then if we would meet in person, but that is out of the question, as we are separated by 1,000 - 10,000 km. The alternative, on average, is not to hear anything about these old friends and never meet them, lose touch, and that's the end of it. That's what happened with people who are not on FB (and living away).

If only there were other ways to send messages to people over the internet

It's the discovery mechanism that's unique to Facebook.

Other messaging services: tell someone your username on it (when you ever happen to run into them again, I guess.)

Facebook Messenger: search for their name on Facebook, find the one with the right profile picture, hit "send message."

Facebook is the modern-day White Pages, except for the entire planet.

And that's the part that makes it so hard to "quit Facebook": you're essentially erasing your entry from said White Pages, so people that want to connect to you by name can no longer do so (unless you're famous enough for Google to pull up your Twitter when people search your name; or you know enough about SEO for people to find your personal-brand website/blog when people search your name.)

Heh, you've given me a great idea for a weekend project (a free directory where you can put your info in, and you'll show up in Google search results). Think Gravatar, but for all of your contact info.

don't forget to add a picture and allow you to tag some interests as well

What would you call it? Imagine it's not just a publisher to Google, but you could land on the directory through a domain. Something about being a planetary directory.

The parent was probably being facetious (they're saying that you're sort of Greenspunning Facebook.)

Nevertheless, services like this already exist. https://about.me, for example. "Vanity website" is the generic term, I think. It's essentially a one-page business card that you can register a domain for.

The difference between these services, and Facebook, is that people sign up for Facebook and fill out their contact details as a necessary step in the process of doing something else they wanted/needed to do. People don't seek out Facebook, they just... end up there. Like your name ends up in the White Pages.

Whereas, these "business-card website" services, you have to explicitly seek out and register with, just for the purpose of having that information out there. Less like the White Pages, more like the Yellow Pages. People that want to be reached out to (i.e. people with "personal brands"—marketers) are willing to go to this effort, but regular people aren't.

It's very unlikely that, if you're looking to connect with someone (who is not the type to create a big public presence for themselves), that they'll have registered with one of these services. Why would they have?

Thanks.

If it's successful it will be bought and become evil. Gavatar tracks its users. It's blocked in my browser. If it's federated then maybe it won't become another Facebook.

Ideally, we will connect to far away people using tv size video conferencing , that enables eye-contact and the viewing of full body langauge - maybe creating something similar to the emotional experience of meeting people(according to research). And the tech is here , just a bit expensive.

But instead we use a tool,text, that creates very little emotional connection(according to research), addicts people in all sort of ways(intentionally), manipulates them via ads, and creates all sort of negative psychological effects.

Like FB's Oculus? :)

We don't know how Oculus will turn out to be - it may be a very isolating and addicting technology.

And there's no need for VR - high quality video conferecing does the job.

I don't think this is what people really want (most of the time). People tend to use modes of communication which are efficient (time/effort/responsiveness/exposure). They use whatever they can get away with: in person - video - telephony - text - like/reaction. I don't think manipulation plays a big part in choosing to text, people's preferences are just exploited by fb et al. for their own benefit.

>> I don't think this is what people really want (most of the time)

I'm not sure if this is true.

Let's experiment. Let's create a rewarding, addicting environment that will train people not to pay attention, not to develop social skills or empathy(research availble) , and be an easy escape from everything.

What will the result be? people will lack those skills. So for them, Social relationships will become more difficult and less satisfying - so why not use facebook instead ?

I think the fact that you can’t turn off read receipts is a kind of shady way to keep you using the app. You also can’t turn off notifications for a chat without going into it and notifying the participants you’ve read the message.

It absolutely is a "shady way to keep you using the app", in addition to a whole host of other subtle things you wouldn't even notice. My intern project one summer was a (failed, thankfully) experiment with one of the darkest patterns imaginable. Everything is very carefully tuned and measured against relevant stats. If it looks good in some place like Venezuela or Zimbabwe, it gets lined up for general rollout.

I'm not a big export on notifications, but afaik on current Android there's OS level ways to turn off notifications. Eg. in the swipe-down thing if I tap-and-hold a FB notification, it offers to turn off all notifications of this category (eg. FB comment notifications). I just tried it.

First of all Facebook messenger is an ugly app on mobile. Second the dark pattern of always having 1 unread messages even though I have literally deleted all my conversations is obnoxious.

The alternative, on average, is not to hear anything about these old friends and never meet them, lose touch, and that's the end of it.

The alternatives are telephone, e-mail, actual mail, text messages, and other means that are not trying to track, tabulate, and sell you and your personal information to the highest bidder.

Amazingly, people managed to stay in touch for thousands of years before Facebook even existed. Even using computers!

Are my emails and text messages not being tracked? My postcards? My telephone calls are definitely being listened to, we know that thanks to Snowden, particularly anybody that talks a lot about stuff the Government doesn't want us talking about.

Whether it's the gov or FB or Google, I assume someone is listening in. When it's time for secure communication, I reach for something like Signal. Otherwise, I'll go for whatever is the most convenient (probably FB messenger, or text, rarely email/instagram messenger).

Bring listened to by the government is very different from being psychologically manipulated by political parties.

Right, but I think that's a separate issue than "...means that are not trying to track, tabulate, and sell you and your personal information to the highest bidder."

Honestly, I'd rather be snooped on by a corporation for advertising purposes than snooped on by the government for worse purposes.

Even when the ad buyer is a foreign hostile foreign government?

In the US at least, being snooped on by a corporation is a subset of being snooped on by the government. All corp snooping is available to the government. In practice, the government often uses corporate snooping to get around laws that would prevent them from legally doing some types of snooping directly.

With Facebook, you get the worst of both of those.

Political psychological manipulation is also done via advertising.

I think the scary part of 1984 was not that the govt spies on its citizens, but that the govt tries to control their thoughts themselves. If thought crime is eliminated via newspeak, the spying is meaningless

You can just lose touch, you know. It happens, and it doesn't make you a bad person.

Interesting. Almost like a tragedy of the commons - each individual is so "laser focused" on their own impact that it eventually leads to them plundering the cumulative value for users.

A phrase I’ve heard in media theory circles is “lost in implementation”.

Just like in real life (:

There is unfortunately a big disconnect between C-level people and regular users. C-levels believe, truly believe, that they are creating a good thing with spying(1) on users to create more and more customized web experience and of course custom ads. They also consider ads as good in general.

(Some) users think that instead it's an uncontrolled full speed descent towards mountain cliff. Other users just aren't thinking about this at all, but I highly doubt that any one of them would ever join side of C-levels in this.

(1) I'm using correct word instead of what C-levels prefer, because "metadata is spying" obviously. Just like it is spying even if I don't record your private conversations, but "only" stalk you 24/7 from afar and record all around you, who you communicate with etc.

Here is a more detailed opinion on (1) written by Bruce Schneier:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_surv...

I think you're missing the point. It's not about MZ's motivations or even how FB thinks about things internally. It's about the perception by significant numbers of people - and, critically, their elected representatives - that FB is fundamentally shady.

There is a very good chance the path we're on ends with FB and potentially all of the social networks being considerably more regulated than they are currently, and I'd argue GDPR shows that we're already well on our way down that path.

Re regulation: I think regulation wouldn't help Snapchat, as any regulation would also apply to them. Actually, you could even argue that it's harder for a small(er) company to comply to regulation. (And btw. regulation is good, at this point MZ also thinks it's good and wants it.)

Re people think FB is shady: that seems to be true, but FB's MAU and DAU keeps going up, whereas Snapchat's has stalled. Actions speak louder than words, literally.

I'm not saying "Snapchat is f-cked", I'm just saying it will be very tough for them.

Although this seems like a popular opinion here, the only thing that concerns me about Facebook is the potential for the govt to get access to the data fb has on me. I actually trust fb with my data because I know that they don’t care what I do online and no one will ever look at it individually. They are just going to Hoover up as much data as possible to target me with better ads, but it’s not like a human being is looking at my data, it’s just a bunch of ML code.

However if the govt can subpoena them and I’m on trial, the prosecution could probably make anyone look like a phsychopath and twist the data to look however they want.

What about where Facebook has wholesaled your information to companies like Cambridge Analytica?

You could say they "learned their lesson" and will focus on ads now, but this pattern of behavior is exactly why people distrust Facebook and find it shady.

Re "Facebook has wholesaled your information": FB does not sell user data (it doesn't need to, it makes so much on ads). CA gained user information on people who installed one of their FB apps whose purpose was to specifically get user data, and additionally because of a shitty choice FB made, it allowed apps like this to also access friends-of-friends data, afaik. Additionally, there was no monitoring in place to detect when an app is mass-downloading user data [through the API]. Overall, I think the most accurate thing to say is that CA was "scraping" user information, saying it like "Facebook has wholesaled your information" is misleading, nothing was "sold" by FB.

Oh no, Facebook sold 50M users worth of data to Cambridge Analytica through API access.

The fact that FB didn't charge more to make it comparable to ads revenue is their own fault. The user data access was a feature, meant to entice more companies like CA to use Facebook APIs.

Again, this flagrant violation of privacy is why people distrust Facebook, because they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth.

I take it you work at Facebook, right?

Re "Facebook sold API access to Cambridge Analytica": it was free, CA didn't pay any money to FB, they simply had an app on FB.

Re "they have proven they will fork over user information wholesale if it means continued company growth": that's very fair criticism imo. I would just note that "fork over" here means "give access to apps on the platform". Also, they changed this mechanism years ago, this scraping vector is no longer around.

Re "I take it you work at Facebook, right?": as I wrote in the original comment, I worked there for 18 months in 2016-2017, I no longer work there nor do I own any stock. I'm a heavy FB user since 2013 when I got divorced, the net of FB for me as a user is very positive, every day. Based on seeing FB internally, I think it's a great company, and I'm comfortable to entrust them my data (I was a Data Engineer, so I have an idea what they do with data).

>"Scraping Vector"

This is the most slanted, disingenuous way to describe a fully-documented feature of an API I've encountered in a while, and the fact you're an ex-FB employee makes it seem like you're astroturfing HN. What CA did was bad, but FB enabled them regardless of how you spin it.

> Overall, I think the most accurate thing to say is that CA was "scraping" user information

That sounds like the least accurate way to describe API access.

So you're betting Facebook will always be on top of the world.

Otherwise in ten, twenty, however many years, when Facebook is churning through ideas to stay profitable and relevant, "selling our user's data" becomes a very attractive one.

Nobody will tell you straight up they are evil.

It’s the things they do, that they may not even be aware of.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/08/22/facebook-removing-onavo...

This. Many of Zuckerberg's public statements, which are presumably largely considered and vetted, display a profound (I would say willful) naivety–political, social, psychological.

The presumption that it's "just business" and that the culture at large should if it wants different behavior change the rules is going to prove the epitaph of this generation of "technology" companies.

The sad part is that absent internal regulation and correction, the inevitable result will be regulatory backlash and the quelling of the next generations' wiser efforts.

It's already well underway in the EU. Once the traitors are out and with them that -sshat Pai is gone, you can expect a time of reckoning cum payback and there is no more obvious shiny target than Facebook.

The unrelenting drip of scandals, married to tin-eared and hollow-sounding reassurances, is building up quite the pyre.

Aside: a close family member who had personal access to MZ quit recently. Their take is quite different: at the executive level, many people know exactly what they're doing and why it's unethical shading into illegal.

Facebook is evil. Obviously, the "devil" is evil, but is his finger? Is his kneecap? Is his moment eating lunch? We don't judge an entity as evil or not because all components are not evil, we judge it based on its broad activity. Much of the devil's components might not know how evil what's in his head is.

Facebook created a social network, great, but it used it as a mass surveillance system, without user consent, to spy on some of the most sensitive parts of people's lives. It spied on those who didn't even use the service. It helped those who'd harm society target those most vulnerable with lies. It offered discrimination as a service with audience targeting. It abused its monopoly. It threatened those that would reveal the truth with lawsuits. It corrupted the security of financial and health services online. It used it's audience for psychological experimentation and targeted their vulnerability to addiction. Facebook is evil, but much of what it and many of its employees do day to day may seem like nothing worse than flexing a knee.

You don't have to actively wish ill on society to damage it. The thing is, Zuckerberg has a level of power that in many ways is unprecedented. I don't think he has poor intentions, but his and Facebook's naivete about the impacts of their every decision, and the emergent properties of the systems they are creating, make them truly dangerous.

I don't think that what MZ thinks is the right thing is the right thing. That's what evil means.

If you have to trust the CEO, you’re gonna get burned. They have different interests than you. The only thing you should trust him to do is make more money if possible.

> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall. But results matter. If I am trying really hard not to kill people but inadvertently kill a few while providing employment for thousands of soldiers, won't a judge completely ignore that good side of me when sentencing? This is why we need laws and regulations to prevent FB from inadvertently killing democracy.

> MZ is trying to do the right thing, overall.

Since when? This is at the top of my Reddit front page right now:

https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve...

The lede:

> Last week, we reported that, as a sophomore at Harvard, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg used Facebook members' login information to break into their private email accounts and read their emails.

Yes, it's an old story, but Zuck has been very plainly amoral for a long time now.

"Evil" is a poor concept. Intention is mostly irrelevant, actions and outcomes are more important. If your actions contribute to "bad things" happening, if you are well aware that this is the case, and if you do not adequately make changes to avoid having your actions contribute to bad outcomes then you are complicit. Facebook is complicit in numerous "bad things", ranging from election interference, the spread of conspiracy theories and hatred, and crimes against humanity including genocide. The fact that FB does not take this complicity seriously or to heart is a resounding indictment of the entire organization. Whether it is "evil" or not, it is complicit in an enormous amount of malfeasance.

You know, capitalist food producers don't need to be evil. All they need do is keep tuning their food, and a blind process of optimization will lead to addictive foods that people eat until they're obese, because that's what maximizes profits for the food industry.

It's not much different for Facebook. A blind process of engagement and relevance optimization leads to a more addictive product that steals more and more of your attention.

It's also not much different for Google. A blind process of information gathering leads to a more privacy violating product.

Different companies have different optimization processes depending on their business models, and they don't need to be made out of evil or have malevolent intent to end up having (potentially) evil outcomes.

People are in charge of their own diet. People are in charge of their own time, how they spend it, on the Internet or offline. Blaming big corporations and capitalism is a sorry excuse for making bad decisions.

Given the FDA and similar regulators exist, that's patently false.

Also given the (hundreds of) billions of advertising dollars spent on shaping consumer tastes/desires when it comes to food.

If people had perfect information and were rational.

And the people will collectively vote for representatives who hand smack downs to these companies.

Right, which is why as a society we’re fine with drug dealers—it’s the users who are obviously intentionally ruining their own lives. Out of choice.

I dont think you use the evil consistently in the message.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com