Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because the complaints she is making and that people find most offensive regarding Facebook are not its data collection. I know that is an unpopular opinion here, but many people don't care about data collection because they don't see how that negatively impacts their lives.

There are sizable populations of people that think the Facebook apps record all audio they hear and serve ads based off what you say in front of your phone. That doesn't stop those same people from using those apps.

The primary problem that the general population has with Facebook is how their algorithms manipulate in the name of profit both at an individual level (e.g. making people feel bad about their lives) and at the societal level (e.g. increasing political division or censoring political speech). Those are the topics on which Haugen is whistleblowing.

The reason this is a more effective line of attack against Facebook is because the negative results are inherently obvious. How does Facebook spying on us have a tangible impact on my life? For the most part it doesn't. Who cares how that data impacts what ads they show you? The impact is more philosophical for most people. How does Facebook manipulating us to make us angry and/or sad have an impact on my life? Well, clearly many of us are angry and/or sad now. Everyone can recognize that is bad.

Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. without it quite well. Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact everywhere?) - it might be an amplifier, but in the past folks have found all sorts of other ways to amplify or not even needed amplification because they could exercise power pretty much unchecked.

So what I am saying is, some of the root causes are old (as in already in the first democracies) and independently of what comes of Facebook, some other changes/things might be needed to achieve the hoped for societal effects in a lasting manner.

>Blaming Facebook for societies' problems is far too easy. People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc.

People die eventually anyway, why should we blame murderers? The obvious answer is that speeding up a negative result is still bad even if that result is eventually inevitable.

> Domestic US political issues will not be resolved by making Facebook disappear (why does it not seem to have similar impact everywhere?)

The US system of government is much more prone to polarization with its first past the post voting and two party system. That said, polarization is increasing across the world. One of the things the whistleblower mentioned in her 60 Minutes interview is that European political parties complained that Facebook incentivizes taking more extremist political positions.

No one thinks that killing Facebook will magically fix everything, but it will at least help slow the rate of things getting worse. Think of it like climate change. Reducing carbon emissions won't retroactively fix the damage already done, but the important first step is to stop things from getting worse.

> One of the things the whistleblower mentioned in her 60 Minutes interview is that European political parties complained that Facebook incentivizes taking more extremism political positions.

Not much love for Facebook from me, but literally all of the European political parties complaining are just looking for a cheap scapegoat for their own failures. Strings of corruption and lobbyism scandals (especially in the conservative and long-establishment parties), other personal utter failures to lead a party or country as well as failure to see and act upon the side effects of three decades of rabid globalization and unregulated hyper-capitalism past the fall of the Soviet Union are what led to the erosion of the classic European Social Democrat and Christian Democrat-type parties.

It's not fixing facebook. No one was saying "fix facebook" when Barack Obama was praised for using it and it was part of his strategy to win. For example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/17/obama-digital-...

The "facebook is bad" started happening when Trump won, imo. Essentially the establishment on both sides realized that it could also be used against them as much as for them. It feels similar to AM radio, which conservatives successfully used and you started to see cries for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.

I agree with the post that this wont solve anything.

Facebook was much smaller during Obama's election wins. It also hadn't even moved off the chronological feed at the time he was first elected. Returning back to that type of feed with no boosting content for virality or engagement would do a lot to "fix Facebook".

Also it is worth noting that Obama's campaign was largely based off positive emotions like hope and change while Trumps was largely based off negative emotions like outrage and divisiveness. People are angry that Facebook is manipulating us into negative emotions. People would be less upset if Facebook was manipulating us into positive emotions. So yes, Trump did shine a light on the problems with Facebook but that isn't because of a left/right bias like you are stating.

Returning Facebook and Twitter to the chronological feed is the solution, imo. I'm not sure how these companies think they can get away with algorithmic feeds and still expect section 230 protection.

Maybe, maybe not. Taking Facebook away might now also act as an accelerant of divisions - hoping for a simple solution might not cut it.

Looking at social dynamics coupled with power politics one should always be prepared for really nasty outcomes even on well intentioned actions. If we as society decide that Facebook (and maybe other similar things) are too dangerous to have, lets do that right and not in a fit of anger allowing powerplays by other actors.

That is argument for universal inaction. There is always more research that can be done to study potential outcomes, but eventually action needs to be taken.

We are staring at a house fire and at a certain point we need to stop debating the potential water damage and turn on the hoses or the entire house will burn down.

My point is that moral outrage is a dangerous policy vehicle. And in this particular situation I am concerned that we might be looking at the wrong fire - to stay in your picture.

> People manage(d) to get into civil wars, genocides, etc. without it quite well.

And fires, also, burn quite well without gasoline.

Where does it end though? Probably Brad Pitt and Elon Musk and Justin Bieber make a lot of people feel bad about their lives. Should media just stop reporting about them?

There is a big difference here. The whistleblower is telling us that FB knows very well (with scientific studies) the harm they're causing, and decided not to do anything just because this would cut their profits. This is the main issue.

> The whistleblower is telling us that FB knows very well (with scientific studies) the harm they're causing, and decided not to do anything just because this would cut their profits.

Do you have a link for the leaked research or the pointer to what we know FB knows? It's been difficult to figure out what exactly this is. The reporting on this has been terrible, what exactly has the whistle been blown over?

The papers are covered by WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039

I don't see a tarball or repo. Where is the data?

Honestly? Yes, the world would probably be a better place if there were less coverage of celebrities--at least in mainstream publications that purport to be at least significantly focused on important news.

Well, the outlets reporting on them became and stayed mainstream by reporting on this. If you ban these news from the "mainstream" ones, you'll just create a new set of mainstream news outlets.

I see your point but individuals living their sovereign lives isn't the issue; the issue is if Facebook keeps kindling the fires of division a day could come where we're knocking at the gates of a civil war. Is that too hyperbolic ? I don't know but if asking people in California what they think of Texas/Florida and vice-versa is a litmus test, perhaps some concern is in order.

The division seems to me leading more to a breakup of the united states, into smaller countries. If one believes in democracy, and local democratic will. Why would that necessarily be bad. The country is filled with red states on the inside, and blue states on the outside. Doesn't seem like the people in the middle are getting the kind of government they vote for. And the people in the blue states have to temper down their liberal pro socialism policies that have served them so well in big cities, to help them stop crime and end homelessness that don't necessarily apply on the inside.

Take gun control. If you live in the middle of nowhere, the police are hours away from helping you. Owning a gun is your only realistic means of self defence.

There is a certain argument that both the red states and the blue states are wrong (perhaps on different issues) and that the best governing would a combination or compromise (which is what most people actually seem to want, given especially that all states are mostly purple).

But that kind of compromise is exactly what Facebook's algorithms are designed to ensure doesn't happen---nobody is gloriously excited about compromise.

It's possible but the economic and social upheavel would be massive. Not a good scenario for anyone I think.

Especially for the relatively poor red states that depend on blue state subsidy.

There are still some southern states that have massive poverty. The union did not serve them well. I can see how they would be better off on their own. Hawaii as well. And its not just about poverty. Hawaiians would like to regain control over their culture, tourism levels, and so on. King of your castle. Even if your castle is just a shack. Counts for a lot. Also cities like Chicago and Detroit experienced huge declines, because of trade with China, that mostly benefits California. I can see how they would like their own policies on trade.

I'm sure there were people walking around saying that in 1775. Yet Greater good prevailed, and US got its independence from Britain. Since its a Democratic Union, I hope it can be dissolved in a democratic way. Is the worry that each state would have fight to get independence?

I am not a fan of histotical analogies like that. One very likely outcome of a U.S breakup is a global economic depression. Another one is Chinese hegemony. I am not a fan of either. Sure, it might work out alright. But it might not.

Facebook is repeatedly banning politicians in a political party. Denying them a voice.

Abraham Lincoln was not even on the ballot in several states. That did not go well.

Politicians yelling at each other is a sausage factory, but good in that it keeps them busy. It’s alarming when a large portion of the population feels they no longer have any voice whatsoever.

Now a big difference these days is that government surveillance is so incredibly tight that any one wanting to start unapproved trouble will be hunted down quickly.

There have been a lot of people advocating for the death of the cult of celebrity and the narcissism it breeds in society, so maybe yes?

I am not against I am just saying there is no legal base to make an example out of Facebook when our entire culture operates the same way.

To be clear I was not making a legal argument. IANAL and have no idea the legal ramifications of all these issues. I was explaining why people are more receptive to this line of complaint against Facebook.

And honestly I think the legal argument is kind of moot. She is testifying in Congress, the body that creates the laws. If society doesn't like what Facebook is doing, we can create new laws that would give a legal basis to step in.

False equivalence is an easy fallacy to fall prey to -- this is not the same thing. It is similar and in the same domain, but hardly equal.

Do you wanna elaborate? I am interested

Sure. Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and any other celebrity do not employ the same nefariously data driven agenda on a scale that begins to come anywhere close to that of Facebook; They are not comparable in this context. Scale is a highly differentiating factor. A more genuine comparison would be to the likes of Robert Mercer, Roger Ailes, etc.

The scale argument seems fishy to me. If we agree something is harmful and illegal usually scale does not matter. You can be a local drug dealer or a drug cartel and both are illegal. But my Angelina Jolie example was more about the fact that even without Facebook young girls will compare themselves to impossibly good looking women since our entire culture promotes it: do the actresses in Friends look like real life women? No, they are in the top 1% of women (Phoebe a bit less but she is the "funny" one). Anyways if we wanna make this illegal the implications are huge.

Scale totally matters.

Many places have laws that personal use amounts of marijuana are not a crime, meanwhile selling tons of will put you in prison for life.

I'm sure marijuana laws like that exist, but are you going to argue that they're actually reasonable? A law with exemptions for small amounts of weed sounds pretty stupid to me and serves better as an example of how politics can twist legislation into duplicitous shapes rather than an example of good scale-sensitive lawmaking.

How daft can you be to think that scale makes no difference? You can drink water and be hydrated or you can drink too much water and die. Scale is critical in determining appropriate rules.

It’s hard to find the proper analogy since the phenomenon is so new. On a legal basis, it was actually hard to build a case against the Mafia until racketeering laws were passed. It was difficult to prove that it was ‘organized’ crime before then (where before the criminals could say these are all unrelated events, and there is no larger organization, there is no boss, there are no lieutenants, you are imagining connections that don’t exist).

I think Facebook’s mechanisms are in the realm of 20th century propaganda efforts across a variety of countries (Americans/Soviets/Nazis). Is anyone forcing you to believe propaganda? Is anyone forcing you use Facebook? Is Facebook forcing you to be altered by their efforts?

Yet, we know how insidious propaganda was, and how coordinated and deliberate it was, and most importantly, how effective it was.

Some people think Fox News spews insiduous propaganda. I think Facebook is merely a symptom of a very complicated problem.

At least in case of the Nazis it was not so effective. The Nazis did not come to power by propaganda. In elections they did not exceed about 1/3 of the votes. The got to power by having another party voting the power to them. Afterwards they actually used plain old violence and economics to achieve their objectives (i.e. it paid to "come along").

Interesting to add that Hitler specifically used "cancel culture" techniques copied from the communist party in Germany at the time to dispatch those who were standing in the way of winning that power. Making the decision to "come along" the default. (Shirer, 1960)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com