[adim86]

I found this press release pretty disappointing. It is very weak. This press release is like saying when the documentary about how bad McDonald is for you (Super Size me) came out, McDonald's issues a statement saying, oh but they (filmmakers) were not fair, they did not show you guys the steps we take to keep harmful bacteria from your food and ensure we don't poison you.

This whole Press release is about the "Steps" they have taken, very few of them tell us about these steps in detail or how we can verify them. There is no pledge to do better or a consequence to not meeting these goals. If feels to me that FB is mega coorp where the people in it want to do better but the machine is so much bigger than the people in it they are currently lost on how to do it without torching the whole company

[grandmczeb]

Your example is interesting because in retrospect Super Size Me was alarmist and unfair. Morgan Spurlock mislead viewers to believe that his health conditions were caused by McDonalds when they were in fact caused by alcoholism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-big-mac-attack-or-a-false-ala...

[esperent]

Are you claiming that the Social Dilemma was likewise alarmist and unfair?

[srtjstjsj]

Super Size Me was a turning point where the power of dishonest propaganda as "documentary" became a major force in culture.

Super Size Me while dishonest about how bad McD is in just one month, was shooting fish in a barrel.

Waiting for Superman, a charter school infomercial featuring discredited superintendent Michelle Rhee, showed the danger of the form.

[robmsmt]

McPaywall

[fn1]

> If feels to me that FB is mega coorp where the people in it want to do better but the machine is so much bigger than the people in it they are currently lost on how to do it

Maybe it's just that the whole concept - Algorithmic curation of content, instead of human editors - is flawed and impossible to fix. Maybe YouTube has the exact same problem only fewer clearnames and a higher barrier-to-entry (no text posts).

How can one ever assume that it's possible to design an algorithm which hands every individual a customized newspaper that is "good for him".

[reynard_le_faux]

It's not like traditional newspapers/outlets are good for people. Not necessarily the algorithms fault.

[searchableguy]

No. That would be repressive and quickly invite censorship from influential people and state.

Better solution: Limit freemium model on anti-competitive basis for software services.

If facebook and instagram stops being free, I would think a huge portion of consumer base will quickly reconsider the value it provides them and alternative companies will have more chance to enter in the market when there is more leveling.

[d3nj4l]

Apart from the bad points, posting a PDF press release in response to a documentary people watched on Netflix is kind of stupid. How many people who watched The Social Dilemma will actually see this press release, let alone evaluate its points?

[nl]

The press release is for press to read and report on which they can then pass on to policy makers.

[fwn]

Yes, it's probably bad from the perspective of how to best cool down criticism.

That aside it would be a very good thing for society if all companies started addressing stakeholder concerns and contributed constructively in the societal discourse around their actions.

edit: tempus

[hashtagmarkup]

The PDF is for the people who are hearing about the criticism (through people who have watched the documentary), and want to feel better about enabling facebook through their work or investment or continued use.

[stingraycharles]

> This whole Press release is about the "Steps" they have taken, very few of them tell us about these steps in detail or how we can verify them.

Not only that, but they seem to focus on the steps they take rather than the results they had. Sure you can take some steps to reduce addictiveness or polarization, that doesn’t mean they had an actual effect nor take away the central argument that the documentary is making.

[blablabla123]

Yes, they should put more effort into it and more than 1 page to argue against a 1.5h documentary. Speaking about McDonalds, they should also show that they are able to learn from other related businesses and not suffer from Not Invented Here. News about elections exist since hundreds of years. For instance in Germany during election day the media can only do limited news coverage about the election until the polls are closed.

Also really every media format so far relied heavily on curation. I think this is ultimately the problem to be solved if they still want to act as news distributor. Like button doesn't really work, especially it's not possible to downlike instead the "like emojis" only indicate how emotionally charged the topic is.

[rijoja]

meh Documentaries are way less information condense compared to written text. For a very quick approximation: - Speed of speech ~ 120 wpm. - So 1.5 hours constant talking would mean roughly 10'0000 words. Keep in mind that that is without all the pauses and dramatic music. - An A4 page would roughly come out at 500 words. - Which means that you could fit 1.5 hours of _constant_ speech in 20 A4 pages.

Since this is infotainment I bet that it's way less than that. Another advantage when trying to get an objective perspective from reading, is that there is no dramatic or eerie music in the background giving you queues on how to interpret the contents on an nearly subliminal level. Furthermore there would not be any faces that your less advanced parts of the brain would attach feelings to.

The social dilemma might probably have been condensed down to a 5 page PDF. All these dramatizations are maybe good if you want to discuss this with 5 year olds, but it's not dense with fact in any sense.

[op03]

True. They can't afford to say they have no clue about what they are doing.

Lets say I want to setup a small town of 10K ppl anywhere in the world. As soon I try to do so, about a hundred different govt depts will descend on me to enforce all kinds of rules built up over hundreds of years to gaurantee health, water/sewage, fire, police, traffic, housing, edu, labor rights etc etc etc

Take public safety and administration of justice - there is always a formula to calculate how many police/judges/public defenders a town needs. There are even Sustainable Development Goals from the UN setting up targets for different countries.

Now Fuckerberg/Youtube et al set up these virtual towns with 2 billion people. And there are no formulas and they think the 2 billion people within will patiently allow them to work a formula out while the world burns.

More likely Social Media execs are going to be swinging from trees in various parts of the world soon.

Whats the solution?

De-scale.

[srtjstjsj]

> people in it want to do better

Profiting by deluding yourself is just lying and deflecting your guilt. Either give back the money you made from your "accidental" misbehavior, or stop pretending it's accidental.