I strongly recommend you give this your time and attention. Two things I find striking and admirable about her testimony, that absolutely make it worth watching even if you are already familiar with the controversy:
1. She is consistent and focused at explaining the issue as a systemic problem with incentives, not a question of good people versus evil people.
2. She is skillfully demonstrating how to deliver strong criticism without scorn but rather with empathy, compassion, and a spirit of collaboration toward all involved.
These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite.
And as a result, to my astonishment, both Republicans and Democrats are engaging with this more intelligently, patiently, and constructively than I have ever seen. It really has to be seen to be believed.
At work, we're trained to examine the _whole_ trade space with no forgone conclusions. To make trade studies rationally, not emotionally. To consider the needs of all relevant stake holders, not just your favorite cohort.
Imagine if political discourse could be like that.
It is an impressive performance on her part. She successfully navigated several primitive attempts by senators to frame the intent of people at Facebook as malevolent. A typical politician move to try to create a fictionalized supervillain to attack - a vapid rhetoric path. She dodged that multiple times and directed the conversation back to the substantive issues of privacy, algorithms, content.
Discussion is generally favorable over war, as long as the truth isn’t being sacrificed for the sake of avoiding accusations. To say that Facebook hasn’t been engaged in bad behavior is, I think, a bit of a stretch though. “Systemic” can be used in the same way that bureaucracies do to avoid responsibility: no one is responsible for the actual state of affairs personally, at least that’s the claim. But ol’ Zuck has been aware of many problems, grilled over them, etc, etc, so we’re not dealing with innocent people here if there is any guilt here. I am not making accusations, but if I were feeling the heat, I might go into damage control and maybe “allow” a sympathetic whistleblower to steer change in a way that softens the outcome.
I don't think the content was impressive at all to be honest. The solution she proposes that former tech employees form a government body creates a very obvious conflict of interest and I dread that it doesn't get more criticism.
This praise is neither objective nor factual, there aren't any leaked documents yet. She proposes solutions in favor of government. This should raise a lot of red flags.
I don't understand which of these accusations are actually breaking the law. They all imply that Facebook isn't being a Good Samaritan, but that isn't actually illegal.
Whether or not anything here is illegal is for the courts to decide. But the hearing is for policymakers. If there's grossly disagreeable and unethical conduct then it's up to policymakers to create new laws or modify existing laws to prevent these things in the future.
If everything that Facebook does to maximize profits is legal, but some of it is horrible, then we should write new laws to make the horrible stuff illegal. If Facebook does things that are bad for the world then policymakers should try to make it stop.
The breaking the law bit comes in the form of an accusation to the SEC that Facebook misled investors by not disclosing that they are in fact not doing everything possible to combat the spread of extremism and radicalization through their platform as they claimed - that they decided to ignore this because it would impact their profits.
Misleading investors is a crime from what I understand, so if found guilty on that account, they did break the law. Now, if they will be found guilty is another matter. Personally I don't think they will even be prosecuted for it.
As a public company they need to disclose information to investors which in some cases they didn't disclose. This is a SEC violation that might be hard to prove since it's hard to say what's OK and isn't.
Also Facebook reps lied to congress which is criminal. The studies show they clearly knew a lot more than they were admitting to about the impact they had and lied under oath.
Congress is not a court. Congressional hearings aren't about determining whether someone broke the law, but rather about whether laws need to be changed.
She's accusing Facebook of withholding information on these issues from shareholders. Now whether the information was relevant or significant enough to announce to shareholders is another question. I guess the media awareness of the whistleblowing did lead to share prices dropping, so kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I think the "solution" she proposes is much worse than Facebook showing questionable advertising and general content to be honest. A ministry to institutionalize a line of communication between Washington and socal media? That is much worse.
My response is by no means a whole response, but I share my amused surprise given that 'shareholder value' argument gets trotted out the moment company does anything that upsets society a little. This suggests that it is not about the good of the society, but that of a specific power center. Normally, as you said, pursuit of profit is cool in US.
Here, FB, if you listen to some of the commentary, is not doing 'enough' to combat 'hate' and 'disinformation'. In short, FB does not do enough about wrongthink to use 1984 terms.
Now, there are arguments to use against FB for the impact on society, but the fact that everyone appears to be surprised that company, gasp, chooses profit over society, is beyond hilarious. No fucking shit.
Her testimony seem designed to provide cover for increased viewpoint censorship on the facebook platform. Her explicit examples are "hate speech" by conservative dissenters that cause people to disagree with narratives she agrees with.
Facebook has applied some of the most heavy-handed and widespread politically motivated censorship that the west has ever seen. If anything, increasing this censorship is likely to increase cronyism and division more than anything.
And their censorship has often not been correct in the past, when being wrong caused real damage. E.g. the now mainstream lab leak hypothesis was censored in a way that may have delayed a more effective response.
They might be doing some things which are questionable ethically. But stopping that would require new laws. And that's very hard because you can't really make a case to target FB in particular (and not also a bunch of other harmful media). But other harmful media (eg Fox "news") is protected by the 1st amendment. And likely so is Facebook for that matter.
But pointing at unethical behaviour and pretending you're outraged is very in vogue. Doubly so in big tech.
Agreed. Psaki is already citing this "whistleblower" to argue for more government oversight in censorship.
> Psaki was asked about Haugen’s interview and whether the revelations “change the way the White House thinks about regulating Facebook and other social media giants.”
“This is just the latest in a series of revelations about social media platforms,” Psaki said, “that make clear that self-regulation is not working. That’s long been the president’s view and been the view of the administration.”
This feels hollow. These are things that have been obvious to everyone for a very long time. We all already talk about it openly and have been forever. What does it mean to be a "whistleblower" about it?
Why can't we just force all social media to advasarially integrate.
I want to be able to message my parents on Facebook from a different social media. Let the market compete on UI and how they store your data.
Imagine only being able to call other Sprint customers with your Sprint cell phone. We didn't put up with this for telephones, why should we tolerate this?
I think this all just a continuation of how society wants everything safe and made of foam. We cannot have danger at the park because someone might scrape a knee. We cannot have contact sports because someone might break a tooth. And we cannot have uncensored internet because someone might reqd something that wasn't Snopes-approved.
Most infuriating to me is that now it's about coddling teens. I didn't want to be coddled as a teen. I wanted to be respected. I wanted to be free of patronizing zealots. Oddly, Zuckerberg was a teenager himself when he started the damn thing.
Teens have rights too, as much as we adults want to deny them.
Teens navigate social media even better than many 30-somethings who were also digital natives. I agree with the sentiment though. Missinformation is a narrative from legacy media to fortify their positions against social media giants. To be fair, the latter are a problem, but mostly the censorship by them is.
People are being fed deliberate poisonous stupidity because Facebook figured they were vulnerable to it or rather implemented an algorithm that maximized engagement and therefore revenue at the expense of the health of society and people's lives.
You are trivializing this harm. I have family that aren't vaccinating and may harm themselves or others because of poisonous shit they learned on Facebook.
I bought more after a stop loss sale. I was a strong bull for a while basing on where I spend my advertising dollars.
I spent like at least 60% of my clients money on FB (before CTV scaled). Now CTV is eating more budget AND I'm really feeling the iOS changes.
I think the ad market will sort it self and value out but this month has been bad and all over the place. For instance targeting small non-profit donor lists isn't as effective but for some reason I'm having some success just targeting everyone over 45 (a non-profit ask, prob won't work as well for a Democratic ask).
I also see a ton of tik tok videos reposted with logo and everything on IG.
Still a bull but I am concerned and unless they get a new platform or immersive reality/ar takes off I don't think there is room for huge exponential growth anymore. Significant incremental 100% though IMHO.
But who am I opinion doesn't matter, my ad buying experience is only one tiny anecdote. I'm small in both spend and my investments - only recently became better at saving vs spending. Though my dad put in more than I could a bit after IPO and has bumped his retirement considerable
Sadly, best thing these regulations could achieve is making Facebook work "worse", that is, not as invasive/addictive and thus not as harmful, and enable some competition.
I can't expect that in a democratic society the very root of the problem with social media - that free speech worked well only in times when printing a pamphlet required some money, connections and education and set a high social and intellectual threshold for doing so, and simply does NOT make any benefit to the society when ANYONE can post on Facebook. Just as democracy itself stops working when everyone can vote, becoming a snake that eats it's own tail.
Sadly, this will eventually result in end of the Western world as we know it and there is nothing we can do.
> Just as democracy itself stops working when everyone can vote
Um, what now? Are you saying universal suffrage is a bad thing? Who are the people you think should be denied voting rights to keep "democracy itself...working"?
Free speech on the internet worked fine before companies developed algorithms to feed you content that made them the most $$. I would also say there's a problem in traditional media - something shared with social media.
Outrage sells. We have a bunch of people walking around being angry about shit that is never gonna change, politicians don't give two fucks about (except it gets you to vote for them), and all media are laughing to the bank because of the engagement it drives.
Polarization was lower when TV political coverage was regulated. Regulation of media can work. The thing is, TV wasn't algo driven. Facebook is a WMD for misinformation, it's just devastatingly effective, capable of toppling (or raising) governments and should have special rules.
[+] [-] zestyping|4 years ago|reply
1. She is consistent and focused at explaining the issue as a systemic problem with incentives, not a question of good people versus evil people.
2. She is skillfully demonstrating how to deliver strong criticism without scorn but rather with empathy, compassion, and a spirit of collaboration toward all involved.
These qualities are what really set this apart from other criticism of social media, and both are incredibly important and healthy in a world where Facebook and Twitter have normalized the opposite.
And as a result, to my astonishment, both Republicans and Democrats are engaging with this more intelligently, patiently, and constructively than I have ever seen. It really has to be seen to be believed.
[+] [-] comfysocks|4 years ago|reply
Imagine if political discourse could be like that.
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobthechef|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
This praise is neither objective nor factual, there aren't any leaked documents yet. She proposes solutions in favor of government. This should raise a lot of red flags.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] asabjorn|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tw600040|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alfalfasprout|4 years ago|reply
This is why hearings like this are important.
[+] [-] tablespoon|4 years ago|reply
You misunderstand: this isn't so much about enforcing existing laws, rather it's about advocating for new ones.
[+] [-] sv123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danny_taco|4 years ago|reply
Misleading investors is a crime from what I understand, so if found guilty on that account, they did break the law. Now, if they will be found guilty is another matter. Personally I don't think they will even be prosecuted for it.
[+] [-] bcrosby95|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragontamer|4 years ago|reply
If a law was broken, it's be a judicial branch / trial. The topic of discussion here is what future laws should be.
[+] [-] invalidname|4 years ago|reply
Also Facebook reps lied to congress which is criminal. The studies show they clearly knew a lot more than they were admitting to about the impact they had and lied under oath.
[+] [-] not2b|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] somedude895|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|4 years ago|reply
Here, FB, if you listen to some of the commentary, is not doing 'enough' to combat 'hate' and 'disinformation'. In short, FB does not do enough about wrongthink to use 1984 terms.
Now, there are arguments to use against FB for the impact on society, but the fact that everyone appears to be surprised that company, gasp, chooses profit over society, is beyond hilarious. No fucking shit.
[+] [-] asabjorn|4 years ago|reply
Facebook has applied some of the most heavy-handed and widespread politically motivated censorship that the west has ever seen. If anything, increasing this censorship is likely to increase cronyism and division more than anything.
And their censorship has often not been correct in the past, when being wrong caused real damage. E.g. the now mainstream lab leak hypothesis was censored in a way that may have delayed a more effective response.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
They might be doing some things which are questionable ethically. But stopping that would require new laws. And that's very hard because you can't really make a case to target FB in particular (and not also a bunch of other harmful media). But other harmful media (eg Fox "news") is protected by the 1st amendment. And likely so is Facebook for that matter.
But pointing at unethical behaviour and pretending you're outraged is very in vogue. Doubly so in big tech.
[+] [-] vijaybritto|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mike00632|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharklazer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yonaguska|4 years ago|reply
> Psaki was asked about Haugen’s interview and whether the revelations “change the way the White House thinks about regulating Facebook and other social media giants.”
“This is just the latest in a series of revelations about social media platforms,” Psaki said, “that make clear that self-regulation is not working. That’s long been the president’s view and been the view of the administration.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jen-psaki-says-facebook-wh...
Here comes the regulatory capture that Facebook has been begging for.
[+] [-] aaomidi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beaned|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehutch79|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tacocataco|4 years ago|reply
I want to be able to message my parents on Facebook from a different social media. Let the market compete on UI and how they store your data.
Imagine only being able to call other Sprint customers with your Sprint cell phone. We didn't put up with this for telephones, why should we tolerate this?
[+] [-] Gunax|4 years ago|reply
Most infuriating to me is that now it's about coddling teens. I didn't want to be coddled as a teen. I wanted to be respected. I wanted to be free of patronizing zealots. Oddly, Zuckerberg was a teenager himself when he started the damn thing.
Teens have rights too, as much as we adults want to deny them.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelmrose|4 years ago|reply
You are trivializing this harm. I have family that aren't vaccinating and may harm themselves or others because of poisonous shit they learned on Facebook.
[+] [-] sva_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sayonaraman|4 years ago|reply
when a company leaves the headlines it's time to sell.
[+] [-] netizen-936824|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dillondoyle|4 years ago|reply
I spent like at least 60% of my clients money on FB (before CTV scaled). Now CTV is eating more budget AND I'm really feeling the iOS changes.
I think the ad market will sort it self and value out but this month has been bad and all over the place. For instance targeting small non-profit donor lists isn't as effective but for some reason I'm having some success just targeting everyone over 45 (a non-profit ask, prob won't work as well for a Democratic ask).
I also see a ton of tik tok videos reposted with logo and everything on IG.
Still a bull but I am concerned and unless they get a new platform or immersive reality/ar takes off I don't think there is room for huge exponential growth anymore. Significant incremental 100% though IMHO.
But who am I opinion doesn't matter, my ad buying experience is only one tiny anecdote. I'm small in both spend and my investments - only recently became better at saving vs spending. Though my dad put in more than I could a bit after IPO and has bumped his retirement considerable
[+] [-] whymauri|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anovikov|4 years ago|reply
I can't expect that in a democratic society the very root of the problem with social media - that free speech worked well only in times when printing a pamphlet required some money, connections and education and set a high social and intellectual threshold for doing so, and simply does NOT make any benefit to the society when ANYONE can post on Facebook. Just as democracy itself stops working when everyone can vote, becoming a snake that eats it's own tail.
Sadly, this will eventually result in end of the Western world as we know it and there is nothing we can do.
[+] [-] tablespoon|4 years ago|reply
Um, what now? Are you saying universal suffrage is a bad thing? Who are the people you think should be denied voting rights to keep "democracy itself...working"?
[+] [-] bcrosby95|4 years ago|reply
Outrage sells. We have a bunch of people walking around being angry about shit that is never gonna change, politicians don't give two fucks about (except it gets you to vote for them), and all media are laughing to the bank because of the engagement it drives.
[+] [-] carabiner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]