Facebook exec extracts foot from mouth: We didn't really mean growth matters more than human life Facebook held a press conference on Thursday to provide details about its efforts to prevent electoral manipulation, only to have its damage control eclipsed by the publication of an executive's internal memo from 2016 suggesting growth mattered more than human life. Acknowledging that Facebook had been used "to divide …
This post has been deleted by its author
Buys a lot of stress relief for those executives.
Not sure if it's a new thing that came out of the silicon valley area or if it was thought of long before, but the saying goes, it's easier to ask for forgiveness afterwards than ask for permission ahead of time.
While I have no doubt facebook has a shadow profile of me stored I have never registered an account with the service, and have been blocking their cookies for a decade or more(along with 13,800 other hosts and domains that don't have the word facebook in them).
Same goes for all other social media except LinkedIn where I have maintained an account though I take care not to feed them any behavioral information beyond what would be in my resume.
"it's easier to ask for forgiveness afterwards than ask for permission ahead of time."
Closer to home than expected. Attributed to Grace Hopper (1986) "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.".
The motto of all skunk works.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
The Church-of-Facebook - Is this a Cult or what?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-leaks-boz-andrew-bosworth
~~~
Dear Facebook Employees:
~~~
You are a Cult! The self-righteous defensive attitude above is sickening. Just how many creepy emotion influencing behavior experiments have you conducted by now? What about your offers of selling data on vulnerable teenagers to Australian banks etc, remember that???
C'mon, lets hear more: 'users have control over their privacy' and 'privacy is important to FB' bs... When the data from the 50m breach is no longer under your control. And your disingenuous statements about not using 'Data-Brokers' anymore for Ad-targeting, but still using them for measuring Ad effectiveness or whatever rubbish - We know the real goal: Total data dominance of Online and Offline user data, sold to the highest and lowest bidder, just so Facebook can reach growth targets. Then we can look forward to 'unique tailored pricing' on everything that's sold on planet earth:
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-do-advertisers-track-you-online-we-found-out/
Followers of 'Our Great Leader Zuk' - You only see what you want to see. Its time to admit to your CRIMES Zuk, time to admit your LIES, even to YOURSELF. Oh no wait, you can't, because you're a true sociopath!
So deeply that you freely sold users data, but don't know to who or how often...
Facebook is the biggest mass experiment ever conducted on humans... Its a honey pot that gets users to sign-up - 'connect for free'. In return they get data sucked out of them by a vampire who connects them with --- Advertisers. Who wins? Investors... Meanwhile users frequently get to enjoy clickbait, fakenews, loaded stories, dodgy emotional profiling, bullying, intimidation, harassment and of course election rigging...
Facebook is about exploiting the weak / the naive. Users drip feed information over time making Facebook into an untouchable too-big-to-fail data-broker... But, did any Zuck 'family data' get leaked in the breach? Bet not!
Of course. But to achieve it, you need the "connections". That't why they are so obsessed with "connecting people", data in isolation are far less useful and far less influential.
It's this level of penetration inside the society system that is really fearsome. In many ways, far deeper than dictatorships and religions ever achieved, with the same aim - tell people what to think to dominate them.
"fake identities, fake audiences, fake facts, and fake narratives."
Social media, the biggest smoke and mirrors show ever. Full of fake people, posting fake "news" about their fake lives in an attempt to lure in fake friends to share their fake online lives, that are infinitely more interesting than the humdrum, boring existence they live in the real world.
Social media sites are really just MMOs, vast sprawling game play areas where the rule is simply, be the biggest lying prat you can be online. Get as many friends and adoration as you can earn by lying and posting the most outrageous shite, then maybe, just maybe you too can earn big money from sponsors who will pay you to lure in even more gullible dickheads.
We make jokes about the Matrix being a mind-prison, this is where is starts. People escaping the real world into the online social media world of BS.
For you and me - yes. For the powers of the day - no.
Facebook and Google solved the problem of correlating multiple identities into one more than a decade ago.
The fact that you run multiple profiles for them is just another bit of information about you. One they share too.
I'd say once all this has blown over it would be safe to assume that Facebook will go back to doing what they've always done.
I mean sure they'll tell you that they've changed, that they do what they can to protect your privacy. But they've always said this. It didn't stop them then and it won't stop them in the future.
Sure he was, let me be provocative and say I hope Facebook dies a horrible death along with the rest of them.
All these "new" tech companies are as bad as each other. How did we get the point where a corporation puts growth above human life and feels that it's ok to actually state the fact?
The world needs a hard reset.
okies, you hold the power button for five seconds to do a hard reset so I propose holding your breathe for five minutes, this can be done via a viral video on social media explaining you move to the next level of evolution should you manage it.
Full nuke and pave.
On second thoughts, about the only doomsday scenario that would reset evolution to late Ordovician would be something like an oxygen crisis that causes O2 to drop below 7% very quickly,
That would pretty much finish off anything more advanced than pond scum but would quickly replenish itself if CO2 remained constant.
Of course they do. It makes them a fortune, and they are providing the bestest tools available for the job. Gosh. by feedng people "news" of varying degrees of factual integrity to suit what you've detected to be their own confirmation bias, why you must almost be surprised that they get addicted to the way it makes them feel validated in their views and keeps them coming back for more and more fixes so you can keep advertising at them.
As for the "I didn't agree with it when I was writing it" : damn those hands for having suh different morals from your good self. Who knows what other foul deeds they get up to that you don't approve of?
Um, sorry but no, you cannot use that as an excuse. Nobody ever writes something they disagree with unless they are working for the President or a candidate to the presidency. Even then, if you really disagree, you're supposed to resign your position.
While I am writing something, if I disagree with myself then I correct what I'm writing. When I've posted, I am 100% certain that I wrote what I wanted to say. I fail to see how one can disagree with what one wrote but go ahead and post it anyway. It just never happens.
Oh sure, 12 minutes later I might be slapping my forehead and calling myself names for posting whatever it was I posted, but when I wrote it, I was happy with it.
Does this twat think so little of the rest of the world that he thinks they would believe this bullshit?
The correct description for what Facebook does is AntiSocial Media, it does nothing positive for society.
As for many of the staff, going by some of their comments, bunch of silly cultists.
If he's doing stuff that goes against his "ethics" (does any exec know that word?) then really needs to move on. But then, bonuses, perks, etc. will not be his from FB. Someone else will jump right up, suck it up and feed at the gravy train.
"Now, none of us can turn back the clock, but we are all responsible for making sure the same kind of attack our democracy does not happen again,"
Translation 1: This kind of electoral interference didn't make us enough money. We'll charge a lot more next time.
Translation 2: We got in trouble for interfering with our elections. In future we restrict that to other peoples' elections.
FB's business practices are truly despicable, and the more we discover the worse it gets. Therefore I decided want no more part in this company and their platform, or to any longer be their 'product'.
For those who might continue to use FB's platform, I would urge you to consider why you would do so. In real life, would you, your children or friends honestly continue association with people such the owners /execs of FB, who have such extraordinary contempt / disregard for you and yours?
Why continue to feed the extreme wealth and ego of Zuckerberg and friends, knowing now of their calculating and callous behavior against society, and as we read today and not denied, even for your physical safety.
Yep, I thought not.
#terminateFBaccount
#FBculpablehomicide
Senior UK police officer, is suggesting that the raised incidence of knife crime in London is because social media makes it so easy for teenage arguments to get blown out of proportion.
Certainly use of extreme language is on the rise, and the politicians and the tabloids are to blame as well. But Facebook and Twitter facilitate conflict in a way that the traditional, responsible press didn't. The green ink letters got spiked; now they get published.
We don't generally stop things that kill people. The automotive, aeronautical and armament industries continue to thrive. We make a judgement about whether their usefulness outweighs their disadvantages.
Whether facebook is something so good that we can ignore the deaths it might cause is less apparent, but despite disliking it (and not using it myself), I don't really think we want to reduce interpersonal conflict by restricting communication. It doesn't feel like a good solution.
Is there something specific to social media that makes it worse ? I don't think so. Email is social media. Usenet is social media. The only thing that distinguishes facebook is the ubiquity - the tragedy of the commons. Perhaps the commercial pressure makes that worse, but it would happen eventually to anything popular.
Whether facebook is something so good that we can ignore the deaths it might cause is less apparent, but despite disliking it (and not using it myself), I don't really think we want to reduce interpersonal conflict by restricting communication. It doesn't feel like a good solution.
The problem lies in the fact that abuse on social media is, to all intents and purposes, anonymous, and unhampered. That is an abuser / groomer / bully is effectively unpunishable and unstoppable, unless they go so far as to require immediate police intervention. And even then it's pretty difficult for the police to get hold of them. And it's not like the social networks are very good at helping the police, or sufficiently proactive themselves.
Governments are becoming increasingly aware of the financial cost resulting from this (mental health problems, poor performance in school, police time), and the UK government has plans to pass this cost directly on to the social media companies. The memo that has leaked makes any legislation required more or less certain to be passed, especially when coupled with the aggressive tax efficient accounting policies used by these companies.
Facebook have seriously f***ed up, confirmed by this memo. Bye bye profits. How do advertisers justify placing ads with such a company? Advertising on Facebook is now more toxic for a brand than ever before. The recent changes in the Communications Decency Act is another nail in their coffin. How about that for growth and shareholder value? Facebook's shareholders should start suing the board now, whilst there's any money left.
About the only sane course of action now is for companies like this to require paid subscriptions to access their services. This serves to strongly identify users, and the ease with which legal liability can then be passed on to users warranting prosecution (or other retribution - bans, etc) will soon act as a detterent again misbehaviour. The comapnies that start adapting to this model soonest may survive. Those that don't risk extinction.
It's all very well to blame companies whose business models allow users to broadcast their racist etc. views more easily, especially when they make a profit out of that broadcast, but the problem is still with the users.
Ideally, I would like anyone to be able to express an opinion however they like, and not be limited by whether a publisher wishes to restrict publication. And they should not have to put themselves at risk by publicising their personal details. Again, I hate to defend facebook, but don't they attempt to have their users use their real names ? Unlike most others.
I accept that this causes a problem when the opinion offered is inflammatory and the person hides behind anonymity. But it's the essence of free speech, isn't it ? The problem with filtering at the publisher level is that most publishers - like the right-wing newspaper proprieters of the past - have their own agenda.
I'm all for finding a way to make people responsible for their foul views. This is what happens face-to-face : in a mob, racist views get echoed, but in normal society the minority is shouted down. I honestly don't know what the solution to this is, but am sure that having commercial agents filter it is a bad idea.
I'm honestly quite surprised that I've got downvotes for that posting. Thank you for posting your argument : I'd be glad to hear arguments from all the downvoters. As I understand it, it's that people should not be allowed to express their opinions openly but should have to go through a gateway operated by an unelected operator. I agree that that would reduce the output but I can't agree that it's a good solution. Even if you accept that free speech should be restricted to 'acceptable' speech, I can't agree that either commercial operators or the government are fit for the purpose of defining 'acceptable'.
My freedom to swing my arm stops at your nose. The problem with FB is that many of the users either don't grasp this or just flat ignore to seek attention. We can blame the platform but the real blame is the way those abuse it were raised. Fix that and you can fix a lot of ills in this world. Yes, freedom of speech exists in the US however, there are laws that modify that such "inciting a riot", "death threats", etc. But until the parenting issue is solved and the ability to track down an abusive, threatening person is sorted and applied, don't expect change.
Freedom of speech comes with a lot of responsibility.
@Adrian4,
...I can't agree that either commercial operators or the government are fit for the purpose of defining 'acceptable'.
In case you hadn't noticed, it is the job of politicians to decide what speech is acceptable. They make the laws on these matters on our behalf, interpreting the message they're told by the voters that out them there. Hence the laws on discrimination, race relations, hate speech, terrorist materials, etc. Such laws set out penalties for breaching the limits on speech. Facebook et al make it very difficult for such laws to be rigorously enforced, and are quite happy to profit from it.
If you don't agree with the politicians doing that job, I suggest you move to a less democratic country where someone else makes the rules.
This post has been deleted by its author
I don't read Bosworth's first memo as "suggesting growth mattered more than human life". He seemed to be going out of his way to make Facebook employees realise that blunt and 'ugly' truth - that, to Facebook, expanding connections is de facto 'Good', even if people die as a consequence. He was calling out Facebook's amoral nature, rather than advocating it. Why, though? It would be very interesting to see the sort of responses he got: denial/'ends justifying means'/'can't make an omelette without breaking eggs'/etc.
Maybe he was just testing to see how many amoral a-holes Facebook had currently working for them?
It has shown that FB has a large number of either execs who value profit over doing what is right or they are just idiots without a clue. I think imho it is the former with a smattering of the latter.
As for active hunt for fake profiles -hands up thousands of peeps who have agonisingly had to go through their piss poor report procedure. My sister in law had two fakers use her pics, the profiles claimed she was an Apple sales exec living in Dubai selling ..... wait for it ......Used Samsung phones. Ffs only a moron would think the profile was honest.
She reported it and FB said she was the faker and these profiles were genuine(they then blocked her profile and let the fakers stay)- yup what a shower of @55hol5.
Many fake sales profiles may be generating profits for criminal reasons & FB took 6 months and a passport to prove she was the real person. They are biased for revenue and nothing more.
Made me delete my old profile.
I had a similar issue a couple of years ago, using details from my LinkedIn account. Not having a Facebook account didn't help, but after the third account appeared, the following request fixed the problem permanently:
"Could you please let me know what you require, in order to divulge all contact information (ip, email addresses, etc...) about the creator of these accounts, so that I may file a formal complaint with the appropriate authorities?"
Knowing what we know now, they have plenty of information to track such requests back to physical device.
I see little difference between FB "false news" and that found in newspapers TV, film, religions, politics etc
They all lie to make money and use their membership to lever democracy to grab power from the minority with a clue.
Fact is people generally are stupid and willfully ignorant, it could be said that they get what they deserve
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
