
Improve Facebook or Leave It - jarmitage
http://smallblog.desandro.com/2016/improve-facebook-leave-it
======
rm999
I'm not a fan of Trump or the way this election played out (or even facebook,
really), but this article is absurd.

>Because Facebook has multiple figures in leadership positions that supported
Trump. Thiel vocally, Luckey surreptitiously.

Thiel isn't in a leadership position at facebook (de facto or de jure - he's a
board member who doesn't take a day-to-day role) and Luckey is about as
marginalized as you can be within a company while maintaining contractual
agreements. The real leadership of facebook seems genuinely progressive. Also,
I'm not sure some employees supporting a mainstream politician is grounds for
the company to be shaken up or disbanded (49% of voters supported Trump!).

>Because Zuckerberg believes the fake news his platform elevates played no
part in the election ... Because Facebook’s core product promotes the
distribution of false information

Nate Silver largely agrees:
[https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185](https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802272157954781185).
And sure maybe it had some impact, but so did 50 other things going on. I'm
not going to defend fake news and I think it's harmful to the election process
and facebook, but this isn't a strong argument against facebook as a company.

>Because Facebook shipped a racist feature in its core advertising product.

A huge amount of advertising is targeted racially in a non-controversial way.
This is a reality of advertising and I don't consider it racist. Facebook has
made it clear it does not tolerate the illegal or discriminatory use of this
feature.

~~~
sundaeofshock
> (49% of voters supported Trump!).

No. Facts still matter. As of today, Trump has received just 46.6% of the
vote.

------
Waterluvian
I hope one day I'm so wealthy that I can use my source of livelihood to make a
sociopolitical statement.

Until that day, I'd much rather ensure that my children are safe and happy
than to stand up against my employer's wrongdoings.

(I don't work for Facebook. But I thought about how practically impossible it
would be for me to do the "right thing" if it were my company)

~~~
colordrops
Where do you live and what do you do for a living? If it's the SF Bay area and
software, you have no excuse. Or any first world country doing a professional
job for that matter.

~~~
Waterluvian
Canada.

I'm not saying I would turn a blind eye if my company was doing something
dangerous or illegal. But in that fuzzy zone of unethical, maybe illegal but
maybe not... As awful as it sounds, my household has one income and it's not
silicon valley amounts of money and it feels instinctive to protect my own
above all else.

~~~
colordrops
I understand where you are coming from, as I'm part of a single income
household with two children that is barely above water month to month. But
I've actively made a choice to struggle a bit more financially rather than
making potentially twice the salary at a less ethical company. It hurts
sometimes, but for me personally, my mental health is much better and I enjoy
my entire work day. I don't feel awkward in conversations when discussing what
I do. I feel better looking my children in the eye and telling them to do the
right thing. And in the end everyone is well fed and has a roof over their
head and getting a proper education, so if I'm not keeping up with the other
technorati in my supposed group, then so be it.

------
delegate
Note that Facebook operates and has a similar influence in many more
countries.

Just like in the U.S., elections in many countries are affected by the
'quality' of the information being shared and distributed through Facebook.

So Facebook - the people who work at Facebook - should promptly acknowledge
its impact on public opinion and public perception (with the dangers that that
implies) and immediately focus on finding solutions to these unexpected side-
effects of social networks.

Things like echo chambers, fear vortexes, fake news, calls to (useless)
protest and so on.

Social networks have the potential to generate serious unrest - as has been
the case in many countries already, so these things should be taken very
seriously - more than what Facebook is doing now.

~~~
chiefalchemist
FYI the quality of information is defined by the minds that consume it.
Information has zero value and rating until it comes face to face with the
human mind. We need to stop blaming something of no value for the entities
that are unwilling to study it.

Time for The Kardashians? Check! Think about what I just read? Oh sorry.
That's FB's fault?

Really? We're advocating for mass ignorance and laziness? What's next? Blaming
the super market because I buy soda, chips and processed food? Even when real
food is right in front of me? Really?

~~~
delegate
> That's FB's fault?

Since Facebook makes this communication possible (and profits greatly from
it), it should also assume the responsibility for the side-effects of such
communication.

These effects exist and have consequences in the real world (sometimes
violent) and if left unchecked things can quickly spiral out of control and
lead to war.

Yes, people should be smarter and not believe the memes on Facebook, but they
aren't and there is no time to wait for everyone to get enlightened, so a more
practical and constructive solution is needed.

One such feature could be to provide 'alternative views' for posts - a sort of
forced advertising - in which the views of the 'other' side are offered.

A nice and interesting AI project, could save the world..

There's no one else who can do it, only Facebook.

------
semicolon_storm
One day, I hope to live in a world where people can disagree politically and
not think the other side is the evil incarnate.

------
gressquel
People still using facebook ? :-)

Its end is nigh, the era of socialising will come to an end when people
realize its not what we wanted.

I will actually go as far as saying its one great app/idea away from going
down. If someone made a proper app for creating events and it spread like
wildfire attracting all the "kids", I think it would be game over for FB.com

I dont think theres anything else holding me back. Events and messenger...

------
empressplay
Blaming Facebook for the election result is like blaming the ocean for
drownings.

~~~
chiefalchemist
+1

------
vasilia
I'm reading news about security/programming languages/new technologies here,
but I don't know who is this guy. So, maybe someone can explain to me who is
this guy and why I see this post on HN?

------
golemotron
Every time I read something this Manichean - something implying that the "good
people" must climb over the barricades and vanquish the land of evil - Ride of
the Valkyries plays in my head.

------
chiefalchemist
Pro Nanny State nonsense. People need to be responsible and accountable.
There's no room for mindlessness in a Democracy. Yes, FB needs to raise its
bar. But that doesn't absolve the responsibilities of those who use it. This
blame X for the decisions of Y is a false god. It needs to stop.

------
Kenji
There are many reasons to leave facebook (as a user, at least, but arguably
for employees too), but these have to be among the dumbest I've ever read.
Ooh, let's boycott eachother for political opinions. Get a grip.

~~~
SapphireSun
For what it's worth, aren't political opinions about what the practical
applications of justice and goodness are? If you were going to boycott someone
over anything, wouldn't it be those? If someone else's opinion falls within a
reasonable spectrum from our own, it's fine to accept them. When the
difference becomes great enough, you're obligated to reject those views.

Where you draw the line is up to you, though there is often a societal
consensus on what a reasonable Overton window is like. The problem with your
argument is that you want everyone to get along, but you want them to do it
regardless of extreme differences in how different people want to shape the
good life. It's hard to cooperate with someone that fundamentally opposes
everything you stand for at your core and, importantly(!), wants to impose
their views on you. This is important because it is far easier to tolerate
differences between groups that do not impose their views on each other, which
is the situation in which I agree with you more often than not [1].

If you want everyone to get along, you need to show why on particular issues,
or for overarching reasons, it's not worth rejecting each other. Otherwise, I
find what you say hard to accept when examined below the merest surface.

[1] A counter example would be a group that is murdering or mutilating its own
members, and those members ask for help. That would be a clearly justified
case for external intervention.

