I'm not sure we should be taking the whistle-blower's policy recommendations too literally, since her recommendations about what to do are going to directly influence whether people think she's a credible witness. It's much easier to say "Oh I think we should just do better" whilst also saying "And here's how facebook murders babies" rather than "We should shut down facebook". Because if you say "We should shut down facebook" when you present evidence that facebook murders babies, people will just say "Oh well you would say that, you just want to shut down facebook".
I think this article misses the main way we got here today. The reason we are here today is because Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are 1 company. This should never have happened. It was totally anti-competitive. Social media will innevitably have network effects, so it kind of makes sense that you'll end up with giants. What doesn't make sense is that you then allow that giant to go around stamping on all its competitors. What is the best competition for Instagram today? Tiktok. Why is Tiktok the best competition? Because it's the one company facebook can't buy. Facebook has extended its life by acquiring any competitive threats or copying those that it couldn't. Simple traditional governance around mergers could have avoiding this situation. Social media companies will grow big through network effects, but until recently, they didn't stay big - because the natural ebb and flow of users meant interests change and different demographics want to differentiate themselves.
You wouldn't need to regulate facebook if it had real competition, because its influence would be smaller and it would face real competitive pressure to improve its platform.
I'm not so sure. I think real competition would just force Facebook to be even more awful - more rage, more racism, more everything that drives engagement and lets them sell ads.
Why does a whistleblower need to give any policy advice? If they have suggestions I suppose that’s fine but I think that goes beyond the responsibility of a whistleblower.
All a whistleblower needs to do is… blow the whistle. We have existing mechanisms to address the problem or we can create new ones.
I certainly hope nobody is waiting to blow the whistle until they have a solution.
I personally don't understand why, as a whistleblower, she should also be proposing policies. "Hey there's something wrong" and "Here's how you fix it" seem like they should be very distinct in these cases where someone could easily use their leverage as a "high profile" whistleblower to push a particular political agenda.
People ask for Snowdens take on everything too. I think it's just that as a whistle-blower they're somewhat of a verified good guy who also has domain expertise.
I understand the objection, but I think she is a subject matter expert having worked for Facebook, Yelp, and Pinterest. Also, while at Facebook, she worked in their civic integrity department, which is supposed to handle issues like what she was testifying on. Legislators can either take her suggestions or ignore them.
Just because you don't think she goes far enough doesn't mean you need to tear her down. It seems disingenuous if you're a self-described reformer like this author.
Why is it Frances Haugen's responsibility to fix everything? Can't the author start with "yes, and"?
I guess it just seems unproductive to use such a click-baity title.
> First, we need to ratchet back Section 230 as Haugen suggests (or even further), which would simplify the business model.
I give the [EFF] money not because of the bad players in this whole mess, but because of the people with good intentions who aren't as enmeshed in the grit of how stuff works. Every revision of section 230 I've seen proposed would be catastrophic for things entirely unrelated to the intent of the revision.
I’m amazed at the amount of conspiracy theory support I’ve seen about her here on HN (and conspiracy theories I’ve seen on HN in general lately). Am I the only one perceiving an uptick in this stuff?
I don't want to make any wild guesses, but something about this particular whistleblower case makes my spidey-sense tingle. Something is amiss. I suppose time will tell.
Is it the fact that "major news outlets" didn't even really vet her before doing hours of B roll and wide reaching confident stories as to the veracity and intent of her reports...?
You're not the only one. I have absolutely no proof to counter taking everything at face value. But my gut tells me that there's something not quite right with this whole thing, and I find it unsettling. I'm not willing to wave the flag for either the whistleblower or Facebook at the moment.
I listened to her testimony and the reactions to it and thought that she illustrated the problem with social media but I don't know that there is a solution to the problem of Facebook that doesn't address the issues of scale and a lack of social accountability.
Corporations are typically run by the type of person that will do whatever they can to maximize profits and the central theme of her testimony is that the 'anything we can do to make money' drive is the core issue.
Facebook turns a blind eye to things that will impact their engagement numbers and increasing new users.
Which, as Matt points out in his article, isn't an issue except for the sheer scale of Facebook.
For me the factor complicating is that you can't 'solve' the problem here because the core problem is the drive to maximize profits and increase users at all costs. Any corporate structure is going to run a social media company in the same fashion. And will build up to the size of Facebook if it is allowed to do so.
Core issue for some. For others, the centralization of power is more worrisome. Would it be an improvement if, instead of chasing profits, Facebook used their power to instead suppress your favored political movement?
The Facebook whistleblower is a clear government plant sent there to justify government take over of Facebook's popular opinion control apparatus. The Republicans want to shut down the faction that want Trump back and the Dems want to shut down the Bernie bros and Yang's new party, so both parties are united in their desire to regain control of public discourse. When's the last time you've ever seen a whistleblower treated so kindly by the feds?
I disagree, this "whistle-blower" is not heroic. I bet that it will be found that FB paid her to "come out" on this to try to convince the public to want more censorship.
[+] [-] Traster|4 years ago|reply
I think this article misses the main way we got here today. The reason we are here today is because Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are 1 company. This should never have happened. It was totally anti-competitive. Social media will innevitably have network effects, so it kind of makes sense that you'll end up with giants. What doesn't make sense is that you then allow that giant to go around stamping on all its competitors. What is the best competition for Instagram today? Tiktok. Why is Tiktok the best competition? Because it's the one company facebook can't buy. Facebook has extended its life by acquiring any competitive threats or copying those that it couldn't. Simple traditional governance around mergers could have avoiding this situation. Social media companies will grow big through network effects, but until recently, they didn't stay big - because the natural ebb and flow of users meant interests change and different demographics want to differentiate themselves.
You wouldn't need to regulate facebook if it had real competition, because its influence would be smaller and it would face real competitive pressure to improve its platform.
[+] [-] pixelgeek|4 years ago|reply
And it would if the existing regulatory bodies did their jobs. But apparently they can be dodged with a truckload of political contributions.
As would any future regulatory body that legislators come up with. Ask people who live downwind of a chemical plant if the EPA works.
[+] [-] drcongo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mulmen|4 years ago|reply
All a whistleblower needs to do is… blow the whistle. We have existing mechanisms to address the problem or we can create new ones.
I certainly hope nobody is waiting to blow the whistle until they have a solution.
[+] [-] jikbd|4 years ago|reply
That’s not Facebook’s fault.
[+] [-] krisrm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatguy0900|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelgeek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thesausageking|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikecoles|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRjSjjyfN1U
[+] [-] chartpath|4 years ago|reply
Why is it Frances Haugen's responsibility to fix everything? Can't the author start with "yes, and"?
I guess it just seems unproductive to use such a click-baity title.
[+] [-] pixelgeek|4 years ago|reply
Titles that aren't 'click baity' don't get noticed anymore. Sad but true
[+] [-] kixiQu|4 years ago|reply
I give the [EFF] money not because of the bad players in this whole mess, but because of the people with good intentions who aren't as enmeshed in the grit of how stuff works. Every revision of section 230 I've seen proposed would be catastrophic for things entirely unrelated to the intent of the revision.
[EFF]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks
(though I'd agree with the top-level take that drastic anti-monopoly action needs to be a piece of the pie here)
[+] [-] pixelgeek|4 years ago|reply
I don't understand how Facebook can get Section 230 protection if they moderate your feed? How is that not publishing?
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mFixman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Loughla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply
would be a better title.
[+] [-] kiryin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atatatat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrZongle2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokenmachine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelgeek|4 years ago|reply
Corporations are typically run by the type of person that will do whatever they can to maximize profits and the central theme of her testimony is that the 'anything we can do to make money' drive is the core issue.
Facebook turns a blind eye to things that will impact their engagement numbers and increasing new users.
Which, as Matt points out in his article, isn't an issue except for the sheer scale of Facebook.
For me the factor complicating is that you can't 'solve' the problem here because the core problem is the drive to maximize profits and increase users at all costs. Any corporate structure is going to run a social media company in the same fashion. And will build up to the size of Facebook if it is allowed to do so.
SO you can't 'fix' it
[+] [-] chuckee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stefantalpalaru|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blacktriangle|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheNexxuz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpastuszak|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calbruin|4 years ago|reply