TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Facebook exec blames society for COVID misinformation

197 pointsby cbtacyover 3 years ago

75 comments

mbestoover 3 years ago
He&#x27;s right in some sense, but the context is important. The problem is that Facebook is giving the village idiot a megaphone. Facebook can&#x27;t say:<p>- Amplify your commercial business message to billions of people worldwide.<p>AND at the same time<p>- Well its your individual choice whether or not to listen to the village idiot.<p>You guys gave them a megaphone, how do you expect society to behave?!
评论 #29542524 未加载
评论 #29542535 未加载
评论 #29542409 未加载
评论 #29543315 未加载
评论 #29542885 未加载
评论 #29542568 未加载
评论 #29542588 未加载
评论 #29542596 未加载
评论 #29542415 未加载
评论 #29543117 未加载
评论 #29543340 未加载
评论 #29543152 未加载
评论 #29543009 未加载
评论 #29544424 未加载
评论 #29546705 未加载
评论 #29542703 未加载
评论 #29544094 未加载
评论 #29542451 未加载
评论 #29542876 未加载
评论 #29542841 未加载
评论 #29543168 未加载
评论 #29545369 未加载
mikem170over 3 years ago
What about their algorithm?<p>Facebook decides what to show people. They could show you your friends posts in chronological order, and&#x2F;or let people have control over what they see.<p>But no, Facebook decides what people see. Therefore they have some responsibility for the spread of misinformation.
评论 #29542646 未加载
评论 #29542530 未加载
评论 #29542788 未加载
kginover 3 years ago
It’s not false that there is a societal problem that is not unique to Facebook.<p>But that sidesteps the question of what responsibility they have as a company whose profits are, at minimum, powered by that problem, if not exacerbating the problem.<p>“Privatize the profits, socialize the costs” is not sustainable.
评论 #29543534 未加载
评论 #29542513 未加载
评论 #29542488 未加载
cletusover 3 years ago
Look at video games, particularly on mobile. I mean they aren&#x27;t even games anymore. They&#x27;re just metrics-optimized psychological-trick machines to extract the most money from you $1 at a time ie in-app purchases and pay-to-win. These aren&#x27;t games: they&#x27;re engagement bait to bring you and your wallet back each day.<p>Why do we have this? Because people suck and it just makes way too much money for anyone not to do it. Why didn&#x27;t we have this 20 years? Because the technical capability wasn&#x27;t there.<p>It&#x27;s really no different here. Communication and messaging costs have really gone down to zero. If it wasn&#x27;t FB, it&#x27;d be someone else. There&#x27;s simply too much money with very little costs in engagement bait, whether or not that&#x27;s the intent of the platform or product.<p>And yeah, that&#x27;s the case because people suck. Most people aren&#x27;t looking for verifiable information. They&#x27;re looking for whatever or whoever says whatever it is they&#x27;ve already chosen to believe. That&#x27;s it.<p>I&#x27;d say the biggest problem with FB and Twitter is sharing links as this is such an easy way for the lazy, ignorant and stupid to signals their preconceived notions to whatever audience they happen to have. But if Twitter or FB didn&#x27;t allow sharing links, someone else would and that someone else would be more popular.<p>I honestly don&#x27;t know what the solution to this is.
评论 #29544665 未加载
评论 #29547554 未加载
评论 #29545767 未加载
评论 #29543471 未加载
Bendyover 3 years ago
“The NRA say that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. I think the gun helps. Just standing and shouting BANG! That’s not gonna kill too many people.” - Eddie Izzard, Dress to Kill (1999)
评论 #29543895 未加载
评论 #29543389 未加载
actuatorover 3 years ago
Title is really poor compared to the content of the article.<p>In any case, he is right. Look at the pattern, any large social network has these issues, which more or less seems like is related to how people interact. Twitter is massively toxic, Reddit is. Back in day Tumblr which was not current social media huge also used to have content Facebook gets blamed for.<p>Give a platform for people to publish and share and every opinion has the chance to be there.<p>It also doesn&#x27;t have to be a massive broadcast platform, messaging platforms with small communities in the form of groups have these issues on a smaller scale. Though broadcast does make it worse.
评论 #29542472 未加载
评论 #29542426 未加载
评论 #29546888 未加载
评论 #29542475 未加载
评论 #29542391 未加载
评论 #29542428 未加载
cronixover 3 years ago
Facebook chooses what I see while on their platform. If they didn&#x27;t, I&#x27;d just see a chronological feed of my friends posts that I chose to follow as they came through without any external filtering. Going directly to friends walls shows that is not the case.<p>Instead, they amplify emotionally based content that they think I will react to (engagement) by studying previous interactions and don&#x27;t show me things they don&#x27;t agree with (censorship) even if it originated from an authoritative primary source. That doesn&#x27;t sound like it originated in society, but more of a purposeful curation imposed on users, who have to conform if they want to stay. I didn&#x27;t.
scyzoryk_xyzover 3 years ago
Yeah I don&#x27;t think someone in that role from fb is particularly qualified to talk about society and human nature in relationship to social networking.<p>It&#x27;s like listening to someone who builds, designs and optimizes production lines in cigarette factories philosophize about why people smoke and whether it is their free choice to do so.
diegof79over 3 years ago
Facebook execs are not responsible for what people think, but they aren&#x27;t neutral either.<p>The connection between incentives ends generating a situation where their decisions had a huge influence on society:<p>- Their goal is to make the company profitable, and they choose ads as the business model.<p>- Without viewers, there are no advertisers. So, engagement is key.<p>- They need to create incentives to make people both content creators and followers: share your thoughts, share your photos, and show us what you like.<p>- Content creation is hard and strong opinions attract people (both detractors and followers).<p>- A long post format doesn&#x27;t work for casual engagement, and the UI is optimized for a quick scan (because that helps with engagement).<p>The result is short posts of shitty content with very strong opinions that create an echo chamber. Can they get out of that trap? I don&#x27;t know. I&#x27;ve seen good quality content in smaller online communities. (for example, while HN is not small, the quality of the comments is usually better than the article itself). But, I&#x27;m suspicious that optimizing for profit contradicts content quality. Something similar happens with TV shows. TV networks increased the number of reality shows: they are cheap to produce, generate strong emotions, and have a higher immediate audience than a high-quality TV series. The high-quality TV series came from media companies like HBO or Netflix because they don&#x27;t care about optimizing minute-to-minute ratings (they care more about exclusives to attract subscribers).
snthdover 3 years ago
It&#x27;s meta being meta about meta.<p>On the one hand people have free will to believe what they want to - and - apparently - Facebook has no influence or responsibility on that.<p>On the other hand Facebook is entirely in the business of selling influence to change what people believe.<p>The meta is that this is a piece trying to influence what people believe about Facebook&#x27;s influence.<p>I guess that makes this meta about meta being meta about meta.<p>Outrage against Facebook being too influential is marketing for Facebook adverts. It&#x27;s a logical PR strategy. There&#x27;s a perverse incentive to do it for real, and for Facebook to cause actual harm.<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter if anyone in Facebook actually believes that (following a perverse incentive is a good idea). All that needs to happen is for the incentives to be aligned that way. Which might literally be the famed &quot;optimising for engagement&quot;. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU</a>
Booktropeover 3 years ago
Not FB responsibility if they set up and tuned an information spreading system that promotes stuff that&#x27;s inflammatory over stuff that&#x27;s informative? Users of FB only see what FB feeds to them, and that&#x27;s all about how FB aligns the user&#x27;s activities and characteristics to the content FB is supplying. What a total cop out to say, the problem is what people say, when FB plays such a crucial role in what people see. Before FB (yes and other social media) amped this stuff up, a village idiot standing on a corner shouting conspiracy theories got very little attention. But on FB this kind of stuff feeds engagement, and we know how important engagement is.<p>Yet the guy who&#x27;s slated to by FB&#x27;s CTO says, don&#x27;t put all this inflammatory stuff on me! Freedom of speech you know and just let us do our job of promoting engagement and building ever more effective ad targeting technology!
评论 #29542987 未加载
评论 #29543602 未加载
ricardoplouisover 3 years ago
Mental health has been an issue for as long as we&#x27;ve known, but Facebook does have a curious way of amplifying societal problems such as this and making it worse.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...</a>
nimrodyover 3 years ago
&quot;When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought.&quot; - Steve Jobs.
specialistover 3 years ago
Imagine if Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc were run like MMORPGs. Imagine them proactively mitigating griefing, bots, brigading, etc.<p>John Siracusa has been making this point on Accidental Tech Podcast (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;atp.fm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;atp.fm</a>): Zuck&#x27;s envisioned metaverse would also be a toxic hellscape. Because Zuck is ideologically opposed to moderation.<p>The difference, of course, is because social medias sell advertising. Whereas MMOPRGs sell experiences.
alphabettsyover 3 years ago
The Fb algorithm favors engagement and controversy to the point that most people may not even see reasonable takes on a given issue. They’re not neutral.
mc32over 3 years ago
Maybe if facebook’s graph were designed differently so that you have circles of relationships: family, friends, acquaintances, business relationships, interests and everyone else, but by default as the relationships are closer to the periphery, the less they get promoted. The smaller the circle the higher the chance of promotion.<p>That way idiocy’s doesn’t spread high and far and instead has limited transmission radius.
评论 #29542857 未加载
Barrin92over 3 years ago
The medium is the message as the saying goes, the technology we interact with shapes what kinds of interaction we have. Blaming &#x27;people&#x27; makes no sense because &#x27;people&#x27; cannot be changed, unless we genetically reengineer humanity to be more accommodating to Facebook&#x27;s algorithms, which they would probably prefer compared to having to actually fix the problems of their platform<p>&gt;&quot;At some point the onus is, and should be in any meaningful democracy, on the individual&quot;<p>Viewing systems issues that are macro at scale through an individualized lens is great for dodging responsibility and Facebook&#x27;s bottom line but it makes about as much sense as thinking that dealing with climage change will be achieved by everyone voluntarily shopping greener on amazon rather than creating systems that are, collectively and at a mechanism level oriented towards social good
barefegover 3 years ago
Facebook is trying to save the internet culture of 20 years ago. A teenager version of me would 100% support what they are trying to do. But mainstream society is not compatible with the internet mentality of back in the day
imapeoplepersonover 3 years ago
If corporations won’t take accountability then they shouldn’t be allowed to censor
评论 #29542364 未加载
评论 #29542410 未加载
评论 #29542353 未加载
mensetmanusmanover 3 years ago
Globalization has created winners and losers.<p>The losers were ignored by the winners creating huge gaps in trust.<p>The winners used to utilize the few media institutes that they controlled to keep a lid on discontent.<p>Social media has complicated the situation.
评论 #29543892 未加载
Apocryphonover 3 years ago
And yet they participate in society.
评论 #29543055 未加载
shadowgovtover 3 years ago
Facebook is discovering what casinos, distilleries, and cigarette companies learned from their own experiences:<p>Sometimes, you stumble across something wildly successful that hits so hard partially because it keys into the pathological behaviors of some human beings (which can become self-destructive).<p>When you discover something like that, you either volunteer to regulate your interactions with your customers or the government steps in to regulate them for you.
AtNightWeCodeover 3 years ago
Blame the society. Facebook IS a large part of the society. The same way religious people blame things on culture. Religion is a large part of the culture.
Karsteskiover 3 years ago
&gt; Bosworth defended Facebook&#x27;s role in combatting COVID, noting that the company ran one of the largest information campaigns in the world to spread authoritative information.<p>I find this to be such a creepy, off-putting statement. The last thing I want in my society is to have profit-driven tech corporations deciding what is and is not &quot;authoritative information&quot;.<p>Especially given how time and time again they have censored &quot;misinformation&quot; which then proceeded to have merit.<p>No thank you.
评论 #29542382 未加载
评论 #29542352 未加载
评论 #29542377 未加载
评论 #29542423 未加载
评论 #29542303 未加载
iamleppertover 3 years ago
It does not matter if it’s Facebook’s fault or not, Facebook is the causal agent. More than any other social network or media company, they have cultivated the most controversy and continue to do so.<p>Arguing over who’s to blame is like arguing over who’s to blame in drug problems —- human nature or drugs? Facebook adopts the same stance as every other morally bankrupt individual or institution in creating a convenient framework where they can justify the real and measured harm they are doing and weigh that against the demand and profitability of their product.<p>Only time will tell what becomes of Facebook, but in general terrible things have a way of destroying themselves and those that surround themselves with them.
jimbob45over 3 years ago
Thought experiment #1: Facebook&#x2F;Instagram disintegrate overnight. During that same night, a decentralized version appears that operates on something resembling the torrent protocol where users install a small receiver&#x2F;transmitter on their machine and are able to participate in something perfectly resembling FB today (without the ads). The cases of bullying and such remain. How do you go about solving the problem in that case?<p>Thought experiment #2: The timeline is changed such that Bitcoin is actually made into a centralized protocol with one company at the middle with perfect control. Do lawmakers go about shutting it down because it contributes to drug exchanges and black markets?
PicassoCTsover 3 years ago
Well, thats a narrative that has no cheerleaders.<p>All evil is either imposed by a outside and completely repairable, once that evil is removed.<p>Or all evil is eternal, unfixable and the best thing one can do is to give in.<p>Nobody seems to be willing to reverse engineer human brain architecture, to find reachable local optimas and best outcomes with a given, minimally changeable species. I guess it lacks the flair.<p>The irony is, that FB has the resources to do such a job though. They have the largest behavioral DB on the planet.<p>They know us better, then we know ourselves.<p>They could accomplish some nice Leviathancybernetics, but they do not want that.<p>They want to sell that knowledge as scary tales and social engineering advice to governments(palantir) and as marketing to everyone with money.
rishabhsagarover 3 years ago
Isn&#x27;t this the same point as &quot;Guns don&#x27;t kill people, people kill people&quot;?<p>While that statement is objectively true, the fact remains that Facebook amplifies and benefits from sensational posts.<p>They are in a position to moderate the worst impacts of mis-information and yet consistently appear to be falling short.<p>While I agree that parts of society is to blame for the online toxicity online, FB (and other social media companies) are certainly in position to do a better job of managing some of the worst impacts such as vaccine hesitancy and political mis-information.<p>Infact they appear to be reluctant to act on it, since sensational posts and controversial topics appear to encourage attention.
评论 #29542719 未加载
LNSYover 3 years ago
Alas, poor Mark Zuckerberg, a victim of society.
评论 #29542356 未加载
threatofrainover 3 years ago
If I spread business lies on Facebook then Facebook becomes part of the problem. But if I spread lies which result in people dying, then Facebook is suddenly not the problem and we frame it as the fundamentals of democracy.
ambrozkover 3 years ago
The public doesn&#x27;t trust politicians, the government, or its official experts. Facebook is a public forum, and the public uses it to express their mistrust. Politicians then pretend that Facebook is the reason no one trusts them, because shooting the messenger is easier than admitting that they don&#x27;t have much authority any more.<p>Are there major problems with Facebook? Absolutely. But the motivation behind attacks like the one leveled by this journalist is transparently to deflect blame off our incompetent political establishment and onto an easy scapegoat. The truth is that if politicians want people to trust them, they&#x27;re going to have to figure out how to convince those people. Making Facebook or Twitter delete your enemies&#x27; posts hasn&#x27;t worked in the past and it won&#x27;t work in the future. This is a free society. You don&#x27;t get to replace the public&#x27;s opinions just because you declared those opinions &quot;misinformation.&quot; Maybe in China, but it just doesn&#x27;t work that way here.
somehnacct3757over 3 years ago
This dodges the real issue which is that Facebook profits from users spreading disinformation. In fact this content is more engaging so their profit maximizers will amplify the disinformation. And as Frances Haugen&#x27;s testimony demonstrates, FB knows this internally and chooses their profits over their users&#x27; well-being.<p>What the FB exec is trying to do here is akin to oil companies cleaning sludge of ducks. &quot;Look! We&#x27;re helping! Were part of the solution!&quot; But the ducks shouldn&#x27;t have any sludge on them in the first place.
评论 #29542867 未加载
chris_wotover 3 years ago
He says if he spends every dollar in removing fake and misleading content it won’t fix the issue.<p>More and more people like myself are just… deleting Facebook. Not deleting their account. Just deleting it from their phone, and never bother logging in from anywhere.<p>I urge people to try it. Don’t bother jumping through the hoops Facebook give you for deleting it. Just delete it from your phone. You’ll spend a day trying to check it, realise it isn’t there, then you’ll completely forget about it. And you won’t miss it.
nathiasover 3 years ago
They are right, these aren&#x27;t problems problems of online discourse but rather problems of lack of critical thinking, reflection and other education in general that has become visible with digitalization. The solution isn&#x27;t to create a facebook that will regulate and rule the masses for good, but to gradually educate the masses into thinking.<p>This just seems as a natural side effect of the new production mode that we have had for some time now, selling adds as the main source of income.
dandanuaover 3 years ago
Society is dumb because execs of Facebook and other mega corporations want it to be dumb. They&#x27;re building walled gardens where the herd can graze in a virtual reality, fully controlled by them.<p>Yes, an average man has no idea how viruses work or what is mRNA, but he is not dumb to understand that Zuckerberg and other billionaires just don&#x27;t give a ** about his life. That&#x27;s why all the conspiracies and denial of what comes from authorities.
ElectronShakover 3 years ago
I agree, and to assume that censorship helps society become better is just daft thinking.<p>What happened to things like &quot;Its healthy to question everything around you&quot;.
ricardobayesover 3 years ago
Facebook is made of people, it&#x27;s us. We created it, we operate it and we can make it better or cancel it all together. It&#x27;s just on us.
kodahover 3 years ago
Why not both?<p>Facebook (and more broadly, social media) is to blame for letting every idiot in the world go viral with their terrible opinions.<p>Society is to blame for the content.
lr4444lrover 3 years ago
I understand that corp execs are gonna corp exec,, but I gotta admit I am still unclear on a fundamental level why social media is any more blame worthy for misinformation than broadcast media on a qualitative level. FB never made you any promises that what your read on it contains any truth whatsoever.
评论 #29542376 未加载
评论 #29542350 未加载
IYashaover 3 years ago
Facebook&#x2F;youtube&#x2F;whatever else posing as a ministry of truth, yeah. They absolutely do know truth on any topic, even health, science. Sure they have right to block anyone they see fit? (&#x2F;sarcasm) There&#x27;s no neutrality. There&#x27;s just fb&#x2F;meta machine that feeds of humans.
KaiserProover 3 years ago
Once again Boz has been reading a bunch of pop philosophy books and the press team left him alone with the press again.<p>He _may_ have made some excellent choices with oculus (price, formfactor feature tradeoff). However he still hasn&#x27;t grasped the basics of communication.<p>His internal posts are long, rambling and at a tangent to the point he&#x27;s making. Someone told him once that allegories in stories can be more effective means for communication. Either no one has told him he&#x27;s doing it wrong, or no one who he respects has. more importantly the point hes making is normally painfully reductive, despite the 8k words implying its well thought out.<p>The core problem is that he honestly believes that facebook has done the best it can. He is firmly of the school of thought that he and his team can do anything, and do it better than anyone else.<p>The problem is, he can&#x27;t do communication, and it shows. Worse still he can&#x27;t empathise with the &quot;other side&quot;. I don&#x27;t mean sympathise, I mean mean understand why they are thinking the things they are.
评论 #29543526 未加载
评论 #29546296 未加载
bryan_wover 3 years ago
At 1 hour old, this has 143 comments. Also $FB is up over 1% today.<p>Just some random thoughts; take them as you wish.
wodenokotoover 3 years ago
&quot;We are only _bringing_ the worst of people out, it was already in there&quot;
评论 #29542862 未加载
uptownfunkover 3 years ago
You&#x27;re all still on FB? Dropped out and haven&#x27;t looked back.<p>Youtube on the other hand...
评论 #29543974 未加载
Maursaultover 3 years ago
Oblig. Repo Man quote:<p>Bud: <i>I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.</i><p>Otto: <i>That&#x27;s bullshit. You&#x27;re a white suburban punk just like me.</i>
gfodorover 3 years ago
Boz is 50% right but would be 100% right if they ditched the business model that leads them to be incentivized into spying on people and feeding them misinformation they&#x27;ll click on.
handrousover 3 years ago
We ought to stop mixing up what are effectively mass-communication broadcast media with personal social networks. They ruin one another.<p>But of course that would harm profits.
addcnover 3 years ago
There are no causes, just dynamics.<p>And Facebook and society are in one together. Society functioned ‘better’ before Facebook, so I’d start looking at the Facebook end of dynamic first.<p>QED.
评论 #29542541 未加载
addcnover 3 years ago
There are no causes, just dynamics.<p>And Facebook and society are in one together. Society functioned ‘better’ before Facebook, so I’d start looking at that end of dynamic first.<p>QED.
kvathupoover 3 years ago
This is a topic that came up in the wonderful Maria Ressa&#x27;s Nobel Peace Prize speech. She argued that an international coalition of governments needs to combat disinformation on social media by saying what information is the &quot;truth&quot;, a word that came up often in her speech.<p>I don&#x27;t think this will work at all. Ignoring the implications of government interference in private corporations, do we trust governments to be arbiters of truth?<p>I certainly don&#x27;t, and I&#x27;m sure John Locke would have agreed. In the case of the US, the government itself was the source of much skepticism concerning COVID, and masks!
评论 #29543201 未加载
评论 #29542728 未加载
评论 #29544467 未加载
tamentisover 3 years ago
At this point they define how society behaves.
Manuel_Dover 3 years ago
I largely agree with this, not just in the context of COVID misinformation but a lot of the stuff Meta gets flak for in general.<p>With respect to Instagram&#x27;s effect on teens, people seem to conspicuously omit the fact that this leaked internal research showed that users were twice as likely to say that Instagram improves their well-being than harms it. It&#x27;s really not clear to me how much of this is due to Meta products themselves, versus inherent challenges people tend to experience during adolescence. And also &quot;Facebook knew instagram was hurting teens&quot; is reductive at best, disingenuous at worst given that teens were twice as like to say it benefitted them.<p>Similar analogies can be made with the Rohingya issue. Talk radio played a big part in inciting the Rwandan genocide. Is it right to say that talk radio was responsible for the genocide? I don&#x27;t think so, the underlying social issues are mainly the cause and radio was part of the landscape in which in played out. I think it&#x27;s a similar situation with Facebook. Like radio, they were a communication mechanism in societies that were perpetrating genocide. Facebook did their best to shut it down, but the challenges of suddenly scaling up moderation in a foreign language is hard. Yet people seem to genuinely think that Facebook was knowingly endorsing the genocide.
jjkaczorover 3 years ago
Just 11-days ago CNN reported that Facebook sold ads comparing vaccine to the Holocaust...<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;12&#x2F;02&#x2F;tech&#x2F;facebook-vaccine-holocaust-misinformation&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2021&#x2F;12&#x2F;02&#x2F;tech&#x2F;facebook-vaccine-holocau...</a><p>Hmmm - were is that meme of Gene Wilder from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory grinning maniacly while saying something along the lines of; &quot;Oh yes, please tell me more...&quot;
评论 #29542740 未加载
beardywover 3 years ago
This headline is wrong. He did not say <i>society</i> is to blame, he said individual people are.<p>Margaret Thatcher said &quot;there is no such thing as society&quot;. By that she meant we have no collective consciousness, we are just individuals. If that is the case then we would have no desire to protect people we don&#x27;t know. Spreading misinformation is not an issue. Most legislation is unnecessary.<p>If you do believe in society, you are part of a larger organism and you aim to protect others.<p>It just depends where you are on this.
Grismarover 3 years ago
Drug dealer blames addicts for substance abuse. No shit Sherlock, but you&#x27;re not accused of coming up with the filth or consuming it - you&#x27;re accused of being a primary trafficker. In fact, the comparison with a dealer is mild, as Facebook is to a typical drug dealer what Walmart is to your local convenience store. Escobar has nothing on Zuckerberg.
lexaproover 3 years ago
Society allowed Facebook to emerge and grow into what it is now, so I can&#x27;t say I disagree.
hui-zhengover 3 years ago
btw, is this host a man or woman, or some other gender? I genuine what to know so that I could use the correct gender pronouns on this person. That host shall wear a badge with preferred gender pronouns.
smaryjerryover 3 years ago
Finally a Facebook exec that tells it exactly how it is. Facebook should not be the information police. Individuals are 100 percent responsible for what they say and do. If someone makes a threat on Facebook, it’s not facebooks fault. The same goes for misinformation. People can get tricked by things but they can also learn. Look at the traditional media. People have learned that they all have their own biases and now it is no longer trusted. The same happens on Facebook. You cheer for a friend or a group for a bit then they say something totally stupid and stop cheering. People are not all mindless drones no matter how much “they are rather ones brainwashed and dumb, not me” people say there is. It’s always “not me” who is wrong. Not to mention even if they are wrong that there should be enough faith people will eventually learn. I love this Facebook execs comments and the way he brings back personal responsibility for what individuals post.
_moofover 3 years ago
At least he admits there&#x27;s a problem. I guess that&#x27;s progress?
rdiddlyover 3 years ago
Calling it &quot;blaming society&quot; makes this pretty funny, like when Manson did it and the kid in the Suicidal Tendencies song does it when his mom won&#x27;t bring him a Pepsi.<p>Facebook&#x27;s self-serving algorithms are of course a scourge in this area, but he does have a point. Part of why the messaging on COVID has been so fucked is because of this very thing: spinning or tweaking the truth. Facebook does it, to increase engagement, but public officials and others also do it. People who should&#x27;ve just told the simple truth, instead tried to gauge our response to it, and spun and tweaked the truth in an effort to &quot;game&quot; the response. Just tell the truth. Because you&#x27;re probably underestimating the general public, as usual, and will ultimately end up increasing the danger and impact, by two mechanisms: 1) people have incomplete or incorrect or insufficient information to act on, and&#x2F;or 2) certain people (who are adults and can tell when someone is dissembling, or communicating manipulatively, a.k.a. propagandizing) start to distrust the &quot;official story,&quot; and the cumulative effect is that they go looking for &quot;the real truth&quot; in all kinds of wacky out-of-the-way places and get all conspiracy-minded, and the Facebooks of the world pick up on this and amplify it in their feeds. You want to combat this? Give them an authoritative, trustworthy source. Tell them the whole, unvarnished truth. Gauging the response, communicating to achieve a goal, well that&#x27;s not informing, that&#x27;s either sales or propaganda. You want to combat disinformation, start with <i>information</i> - all of it, without spin, without censorship.<p>Seemingly every disaster movie has a character who refuses to sound a warning because they don&#x27;t want to start a panic, but then they ultimately cause greater loss of life or whatnot. That character is always a villain. We hate them precisely because their communication or lack thereof, has an agenda that underestimates us and ultimately ends up costing us.
SllXover 3 years ago
“ Facebook exec blames society for COVID misinformation” is the actual title.<p>I thought this article was going to be about something else.
评论 #29542346 未加载
zeruchover 3 years ago
...as if a corporation exists in a vacuum, outside of society.
JKCalhounover 3 years ago
&gt; Asked whether vaccine hesitancy would be the same with or without social media, Bosworth...<p>answered elliptically.
评论 #29542693 未加载
redwoodover 3 years ago
This is a &quot;the media is the message&quot; situation
iansimonover 3 years ago
You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Kw39tcyg7So" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Kw39tcyg7So</a>
arduinomancerover 3 years ago
I feel like a lot of people think &quot;the internet&quot; is toxic<p>When in reality maybe humans are just bad and the internet just exposed it<p>Before the internet there was just no way to see it
评论 #29543132 未加载
robomartinover 3 years ago
&gt; He said that individuals make the choice whether to listen to that information or to rely on less reputable information spread by friends and family.<p>&gt; &quot;That&#x27;s their choice. They are allowed to do that. You have an issue with those people. You don&#x27;t have an issue with Facebook. You can&#x27;t put that on me.&quot;<p>This is such nonsense.<p>Psychology tells us that we are susceptible to message repetition and perceived authority.<p>At the most basic level this is a necessary element for the survival of the species: Parent constantly tells a kid not to get too close to the edge of a cliff. If the brain wasn&#x27;t wired to accept such messages without question humanity might have failed the evolutionary fitness test.<p>I&#x27;ve seen comments on this thread attributing aspects of the social media effect to the village idiot. That&#x27;s also nonsense. Perfectly intelligent people who are demonstrably not idiots fall prey to these psychological effects. Once someone ascribes trust to a source --whether it is an individual, group, news organization, politician, etc.-- it is nearly impossible to make them see the errors in what they are being led to believe. It takes a particularly open mindset to be able to look outside of what I am going to call indoctrination.<p>In the US it is easy to identify some of these groups. Besides religious groupings, anyone who will generally refer to themselves as &quot;life-long democrat&quot; or &quot;life-long republican&quot; is far more likely to accept a world view and &quot;truths&quot; from members of those groups. Religion, of course, is likely the oldest such resonant chambers.<p>Facebook and other social media outlets, along with their algorithms, have introduced segmentation and grouping at a sub-level never before possible in society. Worse than that, they allow and, in fact, are the source of, a constant bombardment of ideas and ideologies in sometimes incredibly narrow domains. This is great when you are trying to understand the difference between using synthetic vs. organic motor oil in your engine. Not so great when it makes someone descend into a deep dark and narrow hole of hatred.<p>That&#x27;s the problem. And yes, FB and social media are absolutely at fault of enabling for the constant repetition of some of the most negative, violent and counterproductive messaging humanity has ever seen.<p>I have mentioned this in other related discussions. We&#x27;ve seen this first hand in our own family. Over the last four years or so we two family members (cousins) who grew up together descend into equally extreme opposites thanks to FB. It is interesting because prior to this happening they didn&#x27;t even have a FB account. They each got one at the same time to keep in touch with family. Four years later one is what I could only describe as a hate-filled-republican and the other an equal and opposite hate-filled-democrat. And 100% of this happened because FB drove these two people into deeper, darker and more hateful dark holes day after day, for years. The damage done is likely irreversible.<p>They (FB) didn&#x27;t need to do that. Yet, that&#x27;s what these geniuses thought was the &quot;right&quot; thing to do. Brilliant.<p>I am not generally in favor of heavy-handed government intervention. And yet, I have no idea how else something like this could be corrected in order to make these social media companies stop being radioactive to society. We have probably wasted at least a decade optimizing for hatred. How sad.<p>EDIT: I was going to say &quot;unintentionally optimizing&quot;, however, at some point anyone with one bit of intelligence could understand this was trending in the wrong direction. Not making modifications to the recommendations algorithms to reduce the occurrence of deep dives into dark holes of hatred is a form of intentionally promoting such results. Again, sad.
sabootover 3 years ago
My bad, sorry everyone. Guess this was all my fault.
citizenpaulover 3 years ago
I mean did you expect facebook to step up and say they were responsible for the spread of misinformation?
aborsyover 3 years ago
I agree with the title.
anikan_vaderover 3 years ago
In related news, society blames Facebook for COVID misinformation.
vernieover 3 years ago
Boz never not giving off psycho vibes.
throwaway47292over 3 years ago
&gt; &quot;Individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing. They are the ones who choose to share or not share a thing,&quot;<p>This is just bullshit.<p>You can say the same thing about extracting confession under torture.. the individual &quot;decided&quot; to tell the truth, why shouldn&#x27;t we admit it into evidence?<p>Those mega structures, controlled by billion parameter models, and then some human goes and does an interview and says &#x27;ye no problem, its your choice&#x27;, is most of all naive and arrogant, that anyone can even pretend to say they understand how the model is impacting the social structure.<p>As Jacques Ellul says, the strongest unit against propaganda is the family, or small groups of individuals, as they pull each other to the center of the group, but imagine now each individual is exposed to unique personalized propaganda, so the group constantly diverges. I imagine it like a group of friends holding hands in a pool, but then there is giant influx of water between them, so there is constant force to separate, so they have to keep their relationships stronger, and the force increases over time.<p>It is the people that seek propaganda, not the other way around. Now however the algorithm satisfies the search in most satisfactory way possible (within the limits of current technology)
SleekEagleover 3 years ago
The legislative system has always taken a long time to catch up to new technological innovations. It&#x27;s certainly a problem that technology advances so rapidly now and the time scale of legislative action can&#x27;t keep pace, especially given how connected the world is.<p>No longer do laws have to keep up with new technologies that affect <i>how</i> we live, but now also information highways that determine <i>what</i> we think to some degree. I&#x27;d much rather these highways be regulated in a way that at least touches democracy than by private companies whose role it is to drive profit.
ypeterholmesover 3 years ago
Neither society nor facebook is to blame. The three foundational systems of our lives have been centralized and corrupted: money, information, politics. These systems are to blame, and the answer is decentralized systems. Decentralized money (Crypto), decentralized information (like HN), and decentralized voting (DAO&#x27;s). Once we start using healthy systems, we&#x27;ll get our power back and be able to fix our problems.
评论 #29542479 未加载
评论 #29542827 未加载
评论 #29544336 未加载
评论 #29542464 未加载