
Departing Facebook security officer advocated for shifts in company’s culture - minimaxir
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/facebook-alex-stamos-memo-cambridge-analytica-pick-sides
======
tptacek
The way Buzzfeed wrote this headline practically guaranteed the mediocre-
bordering-on-toxic thread that resulted here. That quote is taken out of
context, and is not the primary message of Stamos' letter. Which is ironic,
given what his letter was actually about.

This is a good example of a case where the original article headline is _not_
a good HN headline.

~~~
fb_throwaway_99
I disagree. Given the criticisms Stamos has leveled in this memo against the
executive team, the quote of the headline seems very apt to me.

The memo has Stamos making points very critical of the approach of the
Facebook executives (the "we") to these issues over the past several years.
Much of the word count of the memo was spent on "spin" / "setting the record
straight", but that is also understandable given the context, and the
compensation Stamos still likely has on the table.

Perhaps Facebook _does_ need to take a side (not promoting the posts of users
directly advocating violence, not selling data to 3rd parties, not employing
UI 'dark patterns' to encourage users to unconsciously share private
information, etc.).

~~~
krageon
Facebook has taken a side, it's just the side of dark patterns and selling all
of everything it can get it's hands on. It's had this side for as long as I
can remember it existing.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is nonsense. Of course they're already picking sides with every editorial
action they take.

It's not like suddenly they're going to switch from being a bulletin board to
a publisher. They're already a publisher. They're the first and only worldwide
newspaper-tv-town-crier. They pick sides everyday. The only thing left to
decide is how honest and open to be about it. The more honest and open they
are, the more the jig is up and everybody says "What the hell? Why do we want
one publishing company controlling the information stream for billions of
people? Who the hell thought that was a good idea?"

And of course they don't want to have that conversation. So more and more of
this silliness of being one thing while pretending to be something else.

~~~
notatoad
Of course they're picking sides, that's the whole point. The problem is that
right now they aren't picking sides based on morality - in a failed attempt to
be impartial they're picking a side based on policy or technical issues, and
ignoring the morality of the side that decision puts them on.

If they keep trying not to pick sides, they're going to continue to
accidentaly pick the wrong side sometimes. "we have to be willing to pick
sides" is not the same thing as "we have to start picking sides"

~~~
atmosx
Morality in capitalism? How would that work?

~~~
Felz
As a general rule, I'd expect companies to deliver morality in line with how
much the consumer can tell they're actually buying morally, and also actually
cares.

So, with infinitely long supply chains and very complicated products of
unclear provenance, and people who care more about looking moral than being
it… not well.

Information asymmetry is not a problem well handled by default in a standard
free market, I think. But all you need is certification! If only companies
that don't make things in sweatshops are allowed to brand with Not Made In A
Sweatshop stickers, the consumer can naturally prefer those. Of course if
anyone can make up their own certification and stick it on a product,
consumers get confused and can't tell what's legit.

As an example, consider the success of nutrition labelling (nutrition facts).
It's much harder to make and sell food that only LOOKS healthy, calorie-wise,
when anyone can check pretty easily.

~~~
existencebox
I'm not sure I'd hold up nutrition labeling as a success. Feel free to correct
if I'm missing some great shift that it caused (I mean this honestly, I
haven't been paying much attention) but the biggest impact I see of
nutritional labels is e.g. "Non GMO" on like, a can of soda, and "Gluten Free"
on a steak. For me as a consumer, nutritional advertising has been diluted
into nothing more than yet another set of stickers to be gamed.

(Disclaimer, the actual Nutritional Facts on the back are more useful, but as
the endless debate about "what is actually good vs not good" might indicate,
it's far from a Source Of Truth, and in many cases can likely be gamed as
well. Similarly to how even if a news article lists all their funding sources,
an average person probably doesn't care/might still not get much information
from it/might still be mislead by crafting of that fact. I don't say this to
encourage gatekeepers, but to call out that I'm not sure the current
approaches are effectual)

Post-factum-edit: To the downvoters, before this post disappears, at least
tell me where I'm wrong. US Obesity rate is through the roof[0]; and while
this absolutely has socioeconomic roots, that's the crux of my statement:
we're not addressing root causes, and are thus lacking many of the outcomes
we'd want.

[0][https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf)

~~~
Felz
I actually did mean the nutrition facts on the back. Edited my post if that
was unclear.

------
deegles
In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best
way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech."

This would be possible to test empirically. One could to to identify groups of
people who express racism, flat earthism, etc and require some of them to
watch an educational video and answer a quiz. Ban another portion of them from
posting for a set amount of time. Afterwards, compare the rate of posting
about those beliefs to a control group.

Personally, I believe that unchallenged false beliefs are only reinforced over
time.

~~~
spamizbad
Social psychologists who study stereotypes and prejudice have conducted
experiments testing roughly what you describe. What they've largely concluded
is that educational content does not significantly change anyone's views.

I don't know about flat earth, but for negative stereotypes (racism) the only
thing found so far to change minds has been prolonged, direct interaction with
the stereotyped group. Attending a single service at a black church would
probably do more to ameliorate someones racism against blacks than hundreds of
hours of videos making detailed logical arguments.

Keep in mind, this applies to people's views as opposed to their behavior.

~~~
colemannugent
I think about this a lot: If someone arrived at at conclusion through
irrational means, what makes you think that a rational argument would change
their mind?

I'm convinced that rational thinking is often so unhelpful for survival that
humans developed this massive set of patterns to recognize (read stereotypes
and logical fallacies) in order to simply keep living. Now that we are
starting to push the limits of our biology we run into these anti-patterns
that arise.

~~~
bena
It's not an uncommon conclusion. So common, it's been attributed to many
famous thinkers over the years: You cannot reason a person out of a position
they did not reason themselves into.

Also, I would say you're not too far off with how we've developed. A lot of
things that are useful for a more "primitive" species work against us now.
Pareidolia just really messes with us now. Whereas before when the risk of
being mauled by a predator was much more real, the fact that what you thought
was a bear was really a funny shaped rock 9 times out of 10 will save you that
1 time it is a bear.

------
Philipp__
That’s right, I had picked sides too... and I’ve deleted facebook.

~~~
l5870uoo9y
I did too, but was forced back because I need their API. Their latest move is
to close of much of their Event API so people are forced to use their Facebook
Local app, naturally this was justified with "privacy".

------
ashleyn
>We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or
humanitarian issues.

It's refreshing to see this. Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech"
refrain when we're talking about private companies. Facebook is under no legal
obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a
platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right
thing.

~~~
chipperyman573
I don't disagree with you (I mean, facebook not being required to allow free
speech isn't really even something you can disagree with to begin with anyway
- it's a fact). However, a while ago someone made a comment that has stuck
with me: Why do you _want_ Facebook to silence people like this? Let them
identify themselves as awful people, so you know you want nothing to do with
them.

Instead of becoming friends with a closet racist, then finally getting to know
them well enough to realize they're a terrible person, let them identify
themselves outright so you waste no time involving them in your life.

~~~
geofft
I've been thinking about this (and the obvious rebuttal of "What about the
people who think $your_politics should be silenced in polite society"). I
think my answer is that these particular ideas - ethnic nationalism and its
friends - are _deceptively simple_ explanations for problems in the world, and
therefore platforms for publishing, especially platforms for short-attention-
span publishing like Facebook or Twitter, should be particularly cautious in
whether they let themselves be used by these ideologies.

It is easy to say that the reason that Americans or Greeks or Germans are
struggling with their lives is all the Mexicans or Muslims or Jews, and that
if only society weren't spending resources on these other people, things would
be better for us. I can fit that in a sentence. It is much harder to talk
about the complex effects of local, national, and international politics over
decades if not centuries; about specific instances of poor leadership or
corruption; about the proper interpretation of data; about things that really
need papers or books to discuss. I claim that - universally - these longer
explanations are more likely to be right. "It's these damn Others" is _too_
simple to fit the observed data, but even listing each complexity in the
observed data and whether the explanation fits or not it is a paper's worth of
discussion.

Not everyone will recognize that these positions are the positions of awful
people. Some will find the simplistic answer appealing. This is arguably a bug
in human cognition - but if a platform is designed for humans, it makes
perfect sense to take human bugs into account.

~~~
opwieurposiu
So if someone advocates ethnic nationalism in a complex and multifaceted way,
backed by data and statistics, You would allow it?

~~~
pornel
No. Immoral objective is still immoral even if backed by data supporting it.

Maybe it'd be easier to parse on a less controversial example:

> We should steal things instead of earning them. Here is the objective
> factual and irrefutable data showing that robbery is more profitable than
> hard work.

~~~
mistermann
Japan has a rather objectively ethnically nationalist stance, do you consider
Japanese people to be immoral? And when answering that question, consider the
possible irony of your response.

~~~
geofft
As a Christian this argument doesn't make sense to me. "All have sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God." It's not super difficult (nor is it a high-
information-content claim) to consider an entire nation immoral for a specific
thing when you believe that everyone alive today does immoral things in their
own ways.

And as a student of history, entire nations have certainly been immoral. The
Confederate States of America is a good example, and a significant number of
northerners were also morally wrong on the subject of slavery—almost all of
them, a few generations back. There's also Godwin's favorite example, of
course. There are the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children. There were
the Indians—probably including some of my own ancestors—who practiced sati.

I'm certainly not expressing an opinion about Japan; I don't know enough to
have a well-informed one. But I'm not going to ignore one possible conclusion
because it would force me to say that the nation is immoral.

(You switch from "Japan" to "Japanese people" without support or reasoning; of
course, we are talking about an organized nation and the culture and norms in
power, not about ethnicity in its own right.)

~~~
mistermann
I don't disagree, but I asked a fairly specific question of someone else who
was casting judgement based on the morality of a specific behavior, I would
like them to defend that insult.

As for your final point, go watch some man on the street interviews on YouTube
and you might be surprised, this is how they generally feel, it's just not
based on any form of hatred, it just is how they think.

Lots of strong opinions on these topics, very few have the ability to defend
those opinions.

------
gowld
I'm jaded by people who suddenly grow morals and speak out on the day they
retire, after having not interest in those morals during their career when
their opinions mattered.

~~~
jessaustin
I wouldn't vote for Ike again, either.

------
olivermarks
This feels like pre earnings FB pr to me, leveraging the 'security officer'
departure for some 'we're not just relentlessly data mining at any cost'
dialog...but really FB will carry on doing what they do, while apologizing and
issuing mea culpas...

------
greymeister
Society needs to pick a side. Do we want large private companies acting as the
arbiters of public discourse?

~~~
seventhtiger
When you build your website you set its rules. Freedom of speech doesn't mean
you get to use Facebook.

~~~
greymeister
So make a bakery and decide who you'll make cakes for? I don't think that
businesses should operate under such simplistic standards.

------
dredmorbius
"There are many amongst us who would not hesitate to build equipment to
compromise the privacy of any given individual provided the price is right.
These are the whores of industry. They would not hesitate building systems and
devices contrary to the public interest; their only concern is the buck."

Paun Baran, "On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy"

RAND. May, 1968.

[https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html)

One of many prescient insights friom that paper.

------
drewmol
The beauty of Facebook's position is that by having sole control of the
internet middlemanning market, they can solve it without taking a position.
Members of the standard hate groups can experience Freedom Loving Facebook
with ultimate liberty to 'poison the well' of opinion with spiteful shouting.
The 'Anti-Hategroup' Hategroups will have full authority to shout down and
silence unwelcome ideoligies, slowly cleaning the internet of hate. Your
Facebook, _your_ reality. Free from the burden of internet argumemts, we can
all get back to scrolling through ads.

------
drewmol
"You won't believe these 10 hate groups that Marc Zuckerberg refuses to ban,
donates to!" > "Facebook stands firm, bans extremist nationalist hate group:
<No longer available> from platform!

------
sandworm101
>> We need to deprioritze short-term growth and revenue and to explain to Wall
Street why that is ok. We need to be willing to pick sides when there are
clear moral or humanitarian issues. And we need to be open, honest and
transparent about challenges and what we are doing to fix them.

Those who want facebook to step up on various issues may regret it. Don't
assume that Facebook will pick good over evil. Many Facebook people have
spoken about the end of privacy, that it would be a good thing. Note that
those who run Facebook don't actually use it, at least not in the way they
want the rest of us to use Facebook. Do not expect Facebook to take the
popular side. They have their own opinions that are likely very different than
those of the common person.

~~~
noncoml
> Note that those who run Facebook don't actually use it

I would love this claim to be true, but could you back it up with some data?

~~~
privateprofile
"None of the company’s (Facebook) key executives has a “normal” Facebook
presence. You can’t add them as friends, they rarely post publicly and they
keep private some information that the platform suggests be made public by
default, such as the number of friends they have.

Over at Twitter, the story is the same. Of the company’s nine most senior
executives, only four tweet more than once a day on average."

in [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-
high...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high-on-your-
own-supply-why-social-media-bosses-dont-use-social-media)

~~~
gluelogic
Couldn't that be chalked up to how insanely busy people in such positions must
be in their day-to-day life?

~~~
gowld
The US President is a busy fellow, and yet...

------
ironjunkie
Is he still working at Facebook?

This letter reads extremely weirdly. Almost like they are building a narrative
inside the company to keep people entertained.

Politics playing at the highest levels. (Well when you are an exec in a
company full of kids that are convinced they are making the world a better
place, I cannot even imagine the amount of politics you need to play to get
there).

~~~
gowld
He quit and the article is about his exit letter.

~~~
ironjunkie
Did he ? Last two paragraphs :

> Now what? Are you staying? I honestly don’t know.

> If I do leave, I promise to be open and honest.

On twitter he is still listed as at Facebook, and Wikipedia is unclear.

------
hartator
> According to the post, his departure had long been in the works following an
> internal reorganization that left him with fewer responsibilities,

So he was basically already fired. It’s easy to take a moral stand then.
Specially when it’s your department which fucked up recently.

------
diogenescynic
YouTube is no better. Alex Jones is making death threats against Mueller and
neither Facebook or Google has taken it down. They’re cowards. All that money
and they still can’t afford to do the right thing? What a sad reality we’ve
created.

------
mithr
> We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or
> humanitarian issues.

This is a little depressing given Zuckerberg's recent interview in which he
said, with regard to Sandy Hook or Holocaust deniers posting these things on
Facebook, "I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, 'We’re going
to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple
times.'"

This email was sent in March. It seems pretty clear that Stamos' hopes for a
major shift in Facebook's behavior have not come to pass.

~~~
ikeyany
Considering Facebook is opening an office on China, Stamos' hopes are
essentially being steamrolled by a tank.

------
oneplane
I can't read this article, that side has a bad privacy policy that requires
you to accept personalisation and tracking :-/ you can turn off third party
tracking but not first party tracking.

~~~
hyperman1
You don't, actually. Enable firefox reader mode and read the article without
clicking agree.

This works for a lot of these sites.

~~~
oneplane
I know there are workarounds ;-) But the real issue is that the site has bad
practises and doesn't give you an option to opt out nicely. It's basically
saying "eat our crap or leave".

Imagine every newspaper requiring you to sniff a turd and give a copy of your
passport before you are allowed to read it... (I know, comparing
buzzfeednews.com with a classical newspaper is somewhat wrong, but it's just a
bad analogy)

~~~
hyperman1
I see it more like this:

* Me: Hey guard, I want to read this newspaper * Guard: I won't let you unless you sniff this turd. * Me: I rephrase my question innst ye olde English: Canst thou let reade thine newspaper. * Guard: I have no idea what you're talking about. Here is a newspaper, have fun.

You are allowed make life complicated for me, but I violated no law or
contract by rephrasing the question in an unexpected way. The options are: eat
our crap, leave, or surprise us.

BTW, This principle works very well for telesales, religious door-to-door
people, and service desks. Do something unexpected and they do anything to get
rid of you.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Of course employees within Facebook should push back but do they have the
ability? The fact that notes like these only get published when someone is
already out the door throw into question the idea that employees have any
power here. Corporations are just mini-governments and are prone to punishing
workers who question their ethical position.

~~~
erobbins
We pushed back all the time! It was nearly useless though, as our objections
would either be dismissed with platitudes by the execs or ignored by the team
actually working on the feature (and therefore caring more about their PSC
review than the right thing)

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I'd say that proves my point. The people actually programming the feature or
responsible for the thing never push back because the PSC review is more
important. A limp-wristed "push back" that never materializes at the most
crucial moment - when _you_ are asked to do something unethical - isn't really
push back at all.

~~~
nextlevelwizard
What push back have you offered for "something unethical"?

It is easy to be armchair activist who doesn't have to actually put their neck
on the line.

On HN a lot of people talk about how people should just resign instead of
implementing something "immoral", but never take into account that people have
debt and lives to live and while you might lose sleep over a piece of code you
wrote at least you won't go hungry or die of exposure in ultimately futile
effort at stopping the feature, since the company will always find someone who
needs money badly enough to complete the job.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I haven't. Like I said in my original comment I don't believe employees
actually have the power to push back here. The corporation is too powerful.
I'm not armchair activisting.

------
fogetti
Wow. A high ranking officer putting blame on everyone... That's a shitty
company culture for you. It also aligns well with the business that facebook
represents. Even if he was the good guy in this story this doesn't shed any
more positive light on facebook.

------
Cypher
sounds like game of thrones reference

------
samschooler
We need to reemphasize moral, environmental and humanitarian issues in our
society. We are at a point again when the only thing that matters is money.
Yes companies always support "green initiatives" and other causes... but at
the end of the day this support is only there to help them turn a profit.

We as consumers (and co-riders on this planet) need to put our foot down and
say "this stops here." Trump pushing for cost benefit analysis of saving
endangered species, Facebook invading privacy regardless of what is necessary
to push ads, companies pushing internet to developing countries in hopes of
getting the market for themselves under the guise of "helping" these
communities.

I don't have the answer, I just know if we want to grow as a society we need
to learn that looking only for monetary profit is hopelessly shortsighted.

~~~
shittyadmin
I miss businesses who didn't get involved in politics. Now it seems like
everyone is pushing for them to do so and I'm sick and tired of everyone
begging for their particular group to be pandered to.

Even those who used to avoid it like the plague, like CloudFlare and Namecheap
have caved to these sorts of political pressures in the past year.

~~~
hypersoar
Politics is unavoidable. _All_ businesses and people interact with power
structures in some way. Pretending that they don't isn't neutrality, but
rather a passive endorsement of the way things are. Big, entrenched,
successful companies often have the luxury of assuming this stance because
they _like_ the way things are.

As for Facebook in particular, their goal from the beginning has been to
insert themselves into everyone's conversations. It's particularly absurd to
think that they can avoid politics.

