So much hate...
Has Facebook really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't use it if you don't like it. For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected with their friends.
"Has big tobacco really caused that much suffering to you? Seriously, just don't smoke if you're worried about the resulting health problems."
> For most people, it's just a social network where they post innocuous stories and stay connected
This is where things go south. Rewind to the period of time before we understood just how bad cigarettes are for your health. Now in that period of time, your argument would have been applied as such:
"For most people, smoking is just something they do to relax, and it makes them feel good."
Except, now, we know that's not true.
And similarly, we're only just beginning to understand the true impact of social media.
- It helps you relax and makes you feel good
- Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know
- Helps you look sophisticated / cool
- I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits
Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it.
The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best.
I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.
For instance, do you have data showing that there are more antivaxxers because of FB?
Yes, antivaxxers discuss on the platform, so what? they would be discussing in cafes and at family meetings like they've always done.
I do believe we need to use social medias with moderation, especially teenagers. However, I really have a hard time understanding why people are so angry with social medias companies as I don't really see any harm. On the other hand, many people like these platforms and I don't think it's for me to decide what they should be doing with their time.
And if some of the allegations and concerns are correct, the current trajectory companies like Facebook are taking us on are poised to cause far worse. We've already seen Facebook used to facilitate genocide, and there are very concerning trends that indicate it's impacting how entire societies engage each other. It's forcing increased polarization in politics and resulting in extremist candidates.
That good also exists is certainly important. But gauging the harm is not exactly straight forward, and we're only just beginning to understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects.
> I'm yet to see any evidence that FB has caused harm.
But that is quite literally the focus of the leaked research. There is growing evidence that the algorithmic prioritization of hateful/polarizing material is directly eroding the public's trust in civic institutions, and has facilitated the kind of mob mentality that led to the events of Jan 6 (for example).
Again, the issue is not social media. The issue is the application of ranking algorithms that manipulate and amplify certain kinds of dialog on a global scale.
Switching analogies, video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Microtransactions in video games aren't inherently a bad thing. Specific kinds of gamified microtransactions turn out to be strikingly similar to gambling, and are arguably extremely problematic.
I’d argue this is similar to what's happening here. Social media isn't inherently bad, and in some cases is actually quite good. But if participating in social media automatically means that all of my worst tendencies are validated and amplified by the platform, the platform is no longer a neutral factor and instead has become actively harmful.
The Rohingya genocide? While I agree that Facebook does not do enough to moderate content in non English communities, what percentage of the blame do you think Facebook actually deserves here? Recall this genocide was funded and executed by the military of a sovereign state.
It's _forcing_ increased polarization in politics? Be fair. We all have a choice whether or not to engage with content on Facebook, and whether we accept what we see there as truth. Facebook is available in every democracy in the world. In my home country of Canada, we just had a safe and fair election between a reasonable number of moderate parties. We had no insurrection. Many countries are able to do the same. There are a few exceptions.
You're using the term "facilitated" constantly in this post because really all Facebook has done in these cases was serve as a communication medium for blameworthy people with bad ideas. You seem to have no interested in the people who actually _did the things_.
Do you think anything you pointed out here would be difficult to do given any other existing communication medium?
Yes, forcing, and respectfully, no, we do not have that choice, because Facebook decides what you see, not you. And that is the fundamental issue.
If I'm a conspiracy theorist and I constantly seek out content that validates my beliefs, that's a me problem.
If I'm just an inquisitive person that thinks not everything is what it seems and a platform starts feeding and amplifying conspiracy content because it thinks that's what I want and I become radicalized, that's a platform problem.
> You seem to have no interested in the people who actually _did the things
On the contrary - the people who actually did the things should be at the very center of this story, because at issue is essentially the hacking of human behavior.
To be clear, I don't believe Facebook is solely to blame here. What we're seeing is an amplification of human behavior and tribalism that predates the existence of social media. What makes the current climate interesting and problematic is that such tendencies are being exploited and encouraged by algorithms, and the platforms are no longer neutral to the problem.
> We had no insurrection. Many countries are able to do the same. There are a few exceptions.
And we had safe elections prior to 2020 as well. There were no insurrections in the current era here either...until January of 2021. I'd argue that we're just starting to see the 2nd and 3rd order effects of modern social media, and we can't necessarily just look to the past or to make conclusions about the present.
That seems pretty reasonable. I am sure the Facebook recommendation algorithms can be improved. I would be in favour of more transparency here. Without transparency we simply can't know to what extent Facebook is trying to improve things, or if they even are.
To be clear, I do think recommendation algorithms are useful in content aggregator sites (which Facebook basically is). I just think we'd be better off if we could see what they're doing.
> And we had safe elections prior to 2020 as well. There were no insurrections in the current era here either...until January of 2021. I'd argue that we're just starting to see the 2nd and 3rd order effects of modern social media, and we can't necessarily just look to the past or to make conclusions about the present.
I don't thing this argument is falsifiable. It's totally possible. But I think we'd expect to see this in many countries where Facebook is available if it was a single cause of these kinds of outcomes. And so far that is just not happening.
Instagram today has apologized for pushing extreme dieting content to people with eating disorders (only after they were publicly called out on it). This has been going on for years.
Facebook is not a person to be harmed, it's a company that has optimized and automated profitability to the point that it knowingly disregards safety. It's grown to the size where they've admitted that it's impossible for them to moderate effectively... but despite this inability to moderate at scale they still model and display content based on recommendation algorithms that optimize profit.
At this point enough evidence has come to light that I'm entirely comfortable calling them an objectively unethical company.
There are other social companies that likely follow suit, but at the moment none even begin to approach the scale and reach of Facebook.
* The Oreo's packing looks so inciting but the food offers nearly 0 nutritional value.
* The ad for that new game looks so cool but my time would but better spent on almost anything else.
* That car is so fast but it would be cheaper and better for the environment to drive a Prius.
I would rather have the freedom to choose poorly than have the Government trying to micro-manage all the choices in my life.
If your commercial business is to promote certain content over others, regulating that function is worth a debate, especially if it causes such a disproportionate harm to society. Is algorithmic curation with intent to cause addictive behavior actually protected speech? Or in other words, is the government allowed to regulate the time, place, and manner of that curation (not affecting the content)? The US has the broadest protections for speech and if FB fails that test, it's unlikely to hold up anywhere else in the world.
The purist would argue that corporations are allowed to do whatever they want and if society runs like lemmings off a cliff, they had it coming. A more moderate view could be that individuals should be guaranteed free speech but not corporations.
Regulation is necessary but hard. It should be a last resort not the first thing that gets tried. I don't think we are there with Facebook. Maybe some minor regulations, but most people on HN are saying to blow the whole thing up.
There's a cacophony of opinions on here right now. Even the Biden admin's simple encouragement to "fix anti-vax conspiracies yourselves", which is neither regulation nor blowing things up, is being taken out behind the woodshed for being too harsh on free speech, as it carries a vague implied "or else".
Safe harbor is acceptable for websites whose social interaction is not the core business or is just a passive add-on, but FB must be held responsible of all the consequences of hate speech and disinformation on their platform because their algorithms are promoting them.
Which was proven once and for all on Jan 6th 2021
Facebook, the company, increasingly has their grimy paws in every networked enterprise. This is a multibillion dollar corporation dead-set on tracking every individual on earth since before their conception.
Yes, Facebook (the maniacal stalker, their employees, and their demonic horde of advertisers) has caused that much suffering to me.
Maybe try telling your mom first and let us know how that went down..
Those are called "laws"
It's not "Hey want to deny science?". It's "Vaccines change your DNA", "Vaccines contain mercury", "The Vaccine is not FDA approved, could it be because it causes cancer"? Many, many people had no opinion on vaccines and were radicalized on it.
1. The existence of social media
2. The application of carefully optimized algorithms that prioritize problematic content
To be a fair comparison, I think you need to reframe the telephone example: If the telephone system specifically prioritized communication related to terrorism, it would be fair to blame the telephone system and call for changes to how it operates.
Social media creates literal mobs, with literal (tiki) torches if not pitchforks.
Yes, the difference between two cranks bitching over coffee alone versus the amplification which happens over social media IS FUCKING HUGE! (sorry for caps, but seriously -I've lived through both and the difference is fucking huge)
Also, we need to inoculate the mind from these 'meme' viruses with a stronger foundation in basic science. I'm not syaing its an overnight or easy thing to do, but the IMHO I think it would address the core problem.
Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.
>Also, you can be accountable for your actions and still influenced by something else.
Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people.
Ok, what about large disinformation campaigns used to sway public opinion or more generally just sow discord by convincing people of divisive things
> Being "influenced" is a vague term and is so subjective that it is meaningless to have a real conversation around it. Again, "Facebook made me do it" is not a defense under any legal system. If being wrong on the internet is a crime, we'll have to shut down almost every single internet forum. Just on HN I've seen some kooky discussions around covid by well-meaning people.
But facebook can make you do something without that being a defensible excuse. Accountability for your own actions is tangential.
Eve shouldn't have eaten the apple but she probably would not have done it, but for the snake. That doesn't mean she isn't to blame.