Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomLensman | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

And fires, also, burn quite well without gasoline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com