
Facebook Research - sr2
https://labs.rs/en/category/facebook-research/
======
dsacco
Can we change the title to, "The Human Fabric of the Facebook Pyramid" \- the
current title implies this is a site by one of Facebook's research divisions.

------
rukittenme
These articles are so cringe worthy.

On an unrelated note, how safe does facebook feel if they're advertising this?

> “Facebook will market you your future before you’ve even gotten there,
> they’ll use predictive algorithms to figure out what’s your likely future
> and then try to make that even more likely. They’ll get better at
> programming you – they’ll reduce your spontaneity. “ Douglas Rushkoff

Edit: After looking a bit more, is this put out by a third party? That would
make more sense.

~~~
gfodor
yeah this seems to be "Research into Facebook" not "Facebook's Research Labs"

------
rublev
Facebook is the digital MKUltra.

------
placeybordeaux
This is a lot to digest, haven't read all of it, but in terms of a data
visualization project it is looking pretty interesting. They've done a great
job at consistency and merging the plots into the style of the post.

The first plot we hit is a graph with 10 node types and 4 edge types, IMO the
decision to keep the entire post black and white looks good at first pass, but
it starts to hurt on this graph. I am having trouble extracting any useful
information from this graph.

Out standing questions on the first graph:

How does it differ from some other tech million/billionaire?

Why not collapse the cases where a node has only one parent and many siblings
of the same type? (e.g. collapse all of Peter Thiel's companies, sans asana,
into one hypernode)

Why is previous given the same weight as current? Why are titles not treated
differently? (i.e. founder vs security tester (previous))

All told it's a very busy plot that I find really hard to derive any insights
from. In fact much of the text that follows under the heading "Here are few
examples of how you can read this map" contains information that is only
tangentially referenced in the plot.

The second plot, under the heading "Management ties and education" is close to
useless IMO.

The first half of it is a fairly typical representation of a bipartite graph,
but has so many crossing lines it's near impossible to use. It seems to only
be useful to look at the number of edges on one node.

The second half seems to largely just say that many of the powerful people in
management are from top universities and disproportionally educated in the US.
I love sanky diagrams, but flowing from university -> top 100 -> country feels
like a strange choice to me, it erases the information of which university is
in which country, but then again the majority of the chart falls into equal
portions after cutting out Stanford, Harvard and Columbia.

I'd prefer a color (or texture) coded map with dots sized proportional to
attendance, to this chart.

Anyways I should get back to work, I'm interested in going back over the rest
of it. The authors have done a fabulous job at making these visualizations
mesh well with the article and try to tell a story through heavy use of plots.
I actually really like it. I'd love to see the code/data provided at the end.
It'd be a fun exercise to try and improve upon them.

------
fwn
Some parts of the text appear to me to be rather sloppy and scientifically
shallow. References to an ending "globalism" are as unproductive as they are
heterodox.

Also: Those are probably the worst visualisations I ever encountered.

------
accountyaccount
"The Human Fabric of the Facebook Pyramid"

There are so many terrifying layers to this headline

