[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| platform 5 years ago are no longer active on it.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)