He's never not going to be loaded again, so maybe that gives him to feel a certain latitude of perspective which would've only hampered him in the quest for fuck-you money.
Or maybe he's like Nobel, and has already started to think about legacy and how he's going to be viewed? On the other hand, maybe he cares about how loaded he is, and since a lot of his wealth is wrapped up in the value of his company, he still cares. Maybe he just likes to win, and not be seen as the equivalent of this era's tobacco barons.
Wish someone will ask Zuckerberg if he feels stupider now that he no longer very young, and why we should listen to him by his words he is getting stupider by the day.
One of the most troubling articles I've read recently is an Atlantic piece examining Facebook's effect on kids' brains. Zuckerberg can say connection makes us happier all he wants, but Facebook can make children miserable.
>“Studies have actually proven that the more connected we are, the happier we are, and the healthier we are,” [Zuckerberg] said this summer at Facebook’s first ever communities summit in Chicago, where he announced a new, idealistic mission statement: “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
If that's what MZ believes, he's being selective in the studies he's reading. It's frightening that we have a very smart guy with a fatally flawed anthropological view of Facebook's effect.
Mass media technologies like Facebook/tv/radio/newspapers actually have the opposite effect: They increase tribalism and polarization.
Yes, social networks bring some people together... like distant relatives sharing more photos than the Kodak film days. Or a group that shares a hobby like anonymous unrelated guitar players talking about gear on a music forum.
However, asking for communication platforms to bridge the gap of Democrats vs Republicans or Christians vs Muslims or Pro-life vs Pro-choice doesn't work. What really happens is those groups use the technology to dig in their heels even further and double-down on their entrenched positions. Tribalism amplified to the max.
People tend to predominantly post things that make them look good, and reading that makes people feel like their own lives aren't as great as those of their friends and acquaintances.
And how would that change anything? And wouldn't this be an action against the interest of the company? I don't see how anything can be done at this point, he has no choice but continue this vicious circle. Also, I think in his perception the benefits outweigh the damage. Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?
The benefits for who? him? Facebook's investors? influencers and celebrities? or Facebook's users.
TL;DR - Facebook is a "sausage factory", and only a few people know what actually goes on in there. Our collective human history can be used to justify pretty much anything. The chapter that is relevant to my point is that humans are very good at externalizing and abstracting the product for the sake of the customer. The thing with Facebook is that the product and the customer is the same: [two different sets of] people.
To your question, "Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?": What do you use a mirror for that cannot be replaced or overcome with sufficient wealth?
=== The Long; Do Read
Even at the risk of drawing an incomplete, yet horrific analogy, I'll do so anyway. Facebook's users are product correct? Another product consumed by many people is meat. Most meat is prepared in slaughterhouses from animals bred and grown in factory farms for slaughter. There are a lot of procedures that are followed to make the extraction and sale of meat as economically profitable as possible. I don't know of all of them, but here are a few that I do know of
3) Packing animals extremely close together (closer than they would be if they were free to wander unimpeded), so that they are exposed to their own waste in high concentrations and over a prolonged duration: https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/ani... .
4) The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round.
5) Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks, whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.[Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi, 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82:1500–1508] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (but not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries).
6) On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300.
7) The use of sow stalls (gestation crates) has resulted in lower production costs, however, this practice has led to more significant animal welfare concerns. Many of the world’s largest producers of pigs (U.S. and Canada) use sow stalls, but some nations (e.g. the UK) and some US States (e.g. Florida and Arizona) have banned them.
8) Piglets often receive range of treatments including castration, tail docking to reduce tail biting, teeth clipped (to reduce injuring their mother's nipples and prevent later tusk growth) and their ears notched to assist identification. Treatments are usually made without pain killers. Weak runts may be slain shortly after birth.
9) Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows a...
I can see the analogies in some of the points you mention, and I agree with your point of view. However, I think each of us has to make the decision. In my case, I realized I just waste time on Facebook, there is no value in it whatsoever - so I quit using it. I still have some dummy accounts to manage product pages, but I use the News Feed Eradicator plugin so there are no distracting elements.
Why would I want to get closer to people I consider evil? Why would I listen to people whose argument I have already found flaws in?
Until you can answer those questions, society will keep drifting. Dan Carlin had a good argument which essentially boiled down to we are all in this together, but the obvious counter example to that is to make the walls higher and eventually to make the other group submit.
From my perspective facebooks net effect is positive compared to before because it exposes people to different opinions way more than before where it was litterally only someones closest friends, neighbours, family and the news that you had as sources.
Trump is an anamoly and his affect on the tribalism and polarization can't be taken for the norm yet I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him not Facebook.
There are plenty problems with facebook but from my perspective it's better than it's bad.
The point is that is exactly the opposite of what it does. It shows you more of the stuff you like and ends up creating filter bubbles. This aspect of FB is a big part of what people point to when looking at it's impact on the election and polarization of the US.
Let’s say you’re my father in law. Let’s also say you get most of your news from your biker friends in their 50s and 60s. You might then be surprised to hear that the border wall has not been funded, that Trump does, in fact, not make us appear as the leader of the free world. That illegal immigrants are not the reason for soaring health insurance premiums.
These are problems you face when you interface only with people who share very congruent values and obtain their news from the same source. If Facebook uses Skinner Box techniques to keep you on the site as long as possible, it’s not interested in outcomes that are good for you but might make you leave, like challenging your beliefs and values.
Respectfully disagree from my anecdotal evidence. Someone sharing politics you don’t like? Unfollow or unfriend, leaving content in your feed that you want to see, reinforcing your beliefs regardless of the truth/facts.
Conclusion: People are extremely aligned to viewpoints, reinforced by their friends, however they are less aligned than if they STRICTLY consumed media from their own viewpoint because they have some cross-cutting issues.
"... our work suggests that individuals
are exposed to more cross-cutting discourse
in social media than they would be under the
digital reality envisioned by some (2, 6). Rather
than people browsing only ideologically aligned
news sources or opting out of hard news altogether,
our work shows that social media expose individuals to at least some ideologically crosscutting viewpoints "
I'm honestly confused by this comment. Being stuck in a filter bubble and increased tribalism/polarization seem like two things that rather obviously correlate. I don't really understand how that's not obvious.
Where does this tribalism and polarization take place if not online? Do you have any evidence of changed patterns in "real life" with that regard? So if Facebook keeps people in bubbles so they never get exposed to other views how do you know they are more polarized if not using social media.
That's the point; he's not. His approval rating is 38% which is historically low, but that still means that tens of millions of Americans like what he's doing. If you don't know any of them, that says more about you and your bubble than him. (That applies to me as well; of all the people I know I'd be surprised if more than 5% approved of Trump).
I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him
I suspect it's largely the reverse. "Progressives" were rioting over Halloween costumes and the alt-right was making racist memes well before Trump came on the stage, and that's possibly because Facebook and other social media made it easier for them to organize.
I am not sure I understand your argument. How is Trump not an anomaly? How many other politicians out there are like Trump? Voting for Trump does not make you like Trump.
I am well aware of people who approve of him, I also wasn't surprised when he won I expected it exactly because I don't live in a bubble.
I have plenty of good friends who voted Trump and Hillary and I understand why people would vote for either of them. I also understand why Trump still have a relatively large approval rating and disregarding his absurd and clumsy style I am not as negative towards his presidency.
I generally consider myself to be favorable to those outside any kind of 'establishment', but I'm honestly baffled how anyone could be even remotely positive about Trump.
I'm also honestly curious though. Care to elaborate why you're not as negative towards him? And if not in public, I'd really love to continue this by email (mine's in my profile).
I met a Trump voter from India who had spent more than 10 years and a lot of money to get his green card.
He complained about the Dreamers and how that basically was cheating what he had to do the official way.
These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone like Trump.
With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him. Because I don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it is I should be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.
By and large, his politics haven't really done much in any fundamental way. I am aware that there are specifics that can be put forward as "bad" but to me politics is a much larger game than just isolated events.
Fact is that we don't know what the consequence will be. The results of any presidents politics are often seen long after they left office.
So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal.
I benefit from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the problems it creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and I think Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in some fundamental ways.
What I hold even higher though is the US democratic process which I consider extremely impressive in it's ability to contain someone like Trump.
In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided by the checks and balances of the US democratic system.
> I met a Trump voter from India who had spent more than 10 years and a lot of money to get his green card.
> He complained about the Dreamers and how that basically was cheating what he had to do the official way.
could you elaborate on capital-D Dreamers? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
> These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone like Trump.
With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him. Because I don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it is I should be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.
Do you truly believe that his only failing is his communication style? I find myself troubled by the lack of decorum (weird, impulsive tweets, comments that make no sense whatsoever, etc.), locker-room comments like:
“Whoa!” Trump responds. “Whoa! I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
“Whatever you want,” Bush replies.
“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump replies. “You can do anything.”
While I don't know how I feel about the lack of 'decorum' I gotta admit that even my least politically correct locker-room talk hasn't been close to this kind of stuff.
I can understand wanting to vote against the status quo, but Trump just strikes me as way, way into crazy territory. How do you feel about these kinds of statements he makes? And again, I really am honestly inquisitive, and I'd be happy to move this to email.
> So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal.
> I benefit from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the problems it creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and I think Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in some fundamental ways.
What I hold even higher though is the US democratic process which I consider extremely impressive in it's ability to contain someone like Trump.
I'd describe my history and current situation as very similar. I suppose it's part of the reason why I'm so curious about all this, because I can see a parallel universe version of me voting for Trump. Sure, from my current universe this parallel universe version of me is alien, perhaps even repulsive, but it's somehow still me.
I find that fascinating, having had that experience once before (conservative evangelical until my early twenties. That version of me was actually me, not some 'brainwashed' version I can distance my current self from. I really was a young-earth creationist once).
> In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided by the checks and balances of the US democratic system.
> I don't see any cause for real concern so far.
I wish I could be more certain about this, but based on my new consumption there do seem to be a number of very real, very negative effects. However, I'm not certain enough about that to say this with full conviction. If anyone can be more specific about the actual consequences of Trump's presidency, I'd love to hear it. So far I'm inclined to believe that it's worse than many of us think, but I also feel that a lot of the media I've been consuming has been unreasonably negative about Trump (and that strikes me as difficult to pull off).
"Dreamers" referred to people who illegally came into the US when they were children (often due to their parents' decision), who are seeking protection from deportation. [1]
You haven't been a millionaire/celebrity I take it :)
I am not a celebrity either but I have hung out with enough of them to see that "when you are a celebrity you can do anything" is pretty much true. Especially if you look good.
It's really a discussion of the privilege of being a celebrity more than anything from my point of view and I have no problem separating them which is probably why I don't consider it relevant with regards to Trump specifically. It's really a crazy world you live in when you are a celebrity.
I find it telling that you can't actually point to anything that Trump has done which is demonstratively bad in the way it's being portrayed by most media. All anyone really has is the indignation over his tweets and a few areas which I don't believe there is any consensus around on either side of the aisle.
> You haven't been a millionaire/celebrity I take it
You haven't spent any time thinking about this, I take it.
This is a really gross thing to say. Go read Louis C.K.'s statement as just one example out of many recent ones. There are a lot of rich playboys out there, but just because "they let you do it" doesn't mean you're not forcing yourself on them and you're not a disgusting fucking creep.
I have spent time thinking about it which is exactly why I am not just jumping on the same train as you.
You are welcome to feel it's a gross thing to say I am not expecting you to understand what I am talking about. I was simply answering someone who asked for my opinion.
I'm sure he believes his own jibbi jabba. This is what happens when you have to rationalize everything you do for money, on a consistent basis. There is a high price to pay for that, and he must be dissociated from himself at some level.
As a society it is something we don't recognize as such.... at least not yet. It is a violence that we all do to ourselves as a collective. Partly I think because of an economic system that is essentially based on necessity and survival. This economic system, is a reflection of us, so it's a catch 22 situation whereby living in fear makes us dissociate, and while dissociated we act from the "map" not the actual reality... so we keep spinning the wheels of these comanies as well as the old mindsets.
I think if a product like FB is allegedly ruining people's lives, it's on people not FB. It's not like the opioid crisis. People can leave FB anytime without withdrawals.
I agree with you ideologically but I've seen people addicted to just about everything from Heroin to World of Warcraft. I've seen gamers neglect their kids, drop out of college, lose their homes.
I don't find it a stretch to believe Facebook could have the same effect.
"Addiction to online social networking, as well as Internet addiction in general, are recent and insufficiently investigated phenomena, frequently discussed and sometimes disputed in the psychiatric literature.30–35 The addictive nature of SNS is supported primarily by the mental preoccupation of many chronic SNS users who as a result tend to neglect other aspects of their social functioning such as family and offline friends. In addition, according to our own observations, sudden cessation of online social networking (i.e., lack of Internet connection) may in some chronic users cause signs and symptoms that at least partially resemble the ones seen during drug/alcohol/nicotine abstinence syndrome."
And just googling "facebook addiction nih", it looks like there is plenty more material of this sort.
It's more complicated than that. People can't defend themselves against that kind of manipulation. It's extremely difficult to leave that site, because they have you put all of your social connections/interactions into the site with no way to export them.
If you look at the FB phone app after not using it for a week or so, you will have 1-2 notifications. A few hours after opening the app, 7-10 notifications will appear, creating a false sense of urgency to check the app so you don't miss something. Heroin dealers do the same thing when they notice customers not coming around anymore.
The psychological tactics facebook and others use trigger the release of dopamine just like cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and gambling.
> where he announced a new, idealistic mission statement: “To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.”
You should read: "power to build community and bring the world together... inside our walled garden".
Facebook has never been about building technologies aiming at decentralizing the web, so any power they'll give people will be on their own rules and domain.
Anecdotally, I told a friend last night that I had deleted my Facebook 6 months ago so they wouldn't wonder why I had de-friended them. They said they had had the exact same conversation like 3 times this month already with other people. Facebook may continue expanding around the world, but it's popularity has certainly peaked in the US.
I've seen numerous social media juggernauts cone and go over decades. Each was seen as world dominating and unstoppable. Each disappeared into unremembered oblivion seemingly overnight. Facebook is poised to do the same.
I didn’t delete my account but removed the app on my smartphone last month which is as good as. My feed became infested with commercials posing as friends likes and posts. Also the last 18m people have been using a lot facebook to voice their political views. I am not opposed to reading views diverging from mine when they are argumented and constructive. However argumented and constructive articles isn’t what people post on facebook. The whole thing became obnoxious more than anything else. My humble opinion is that facebook could disappear as quickly as it appeared.
I took a ride in my friend's Ferrari yesterday. It took me a few hours after lunch to recover and work on what now seemed like a very mundane project. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't need Facebook to feel left behind.
My usage of Facebook hits a sweet spot I don't know where to find otherwise. I mainly use it to follow music producers, indie game developers and other creators. That's basically what my feed is for.
Apart from that I use Messenger to talk to friends and relatives.
I feel like I'm the only happy Facebook user here.
I'm a bit like you. I use fb exclusively to take part in groups (such as my cycling club and some local interest groups). Zero friends, just a feed of groups and pages I follow. I find it useful.
Mostly it seems like a barren wasteland for socialization, and I don’t follow brands. Whats left are christmas party invitations, baby photos, and messenger.
I find myself intensely disliking my neighbors if I’m on it enough. It feels dystopian.
I use messenger and groups. It's fine. Any troll gets blocked immediately so the experience isn't too bad but I don't use it like I did at the start any more. No sharing with family (all on whatsapp) or friends (also whatsapp, signal or telegram). Sometimes I share images on instagram too and tend to keep up to date with my friends lives (in a superficial way) there.
Is Zuckerberg actually a True Believer? I've never gotten the sense that he's an idealist or really thinks Facebook is a force for good. I think he just says these things because, as the founder and CEO, he has to publicly defend the product.
When the cameras are off, he's all about the money. Don't forget that he once called people who willingly upload their data to Facebook "dumb fucks". Yes, I know, it was a long time ago and he's matured since then, whatever. It's still a smoking gun that Facebook was not created with idealism about "human connections" in mind. At best that part came later, if it came at all.
> Is Zuckerberg actually a True Believer? I've never gotten the sense that he's an idealist or really thinks Facebook is a force for good. I think he just says these things because, as the founder and CEO, he has to publicly defend the product. When the cameras are off, he's all about the money.
I don't think this is (so much) about money for him. If he weren't a 'true believer' his ego would have to come to grips with the idea that he has created sorrow for millions of people all around the world his whole adult life.
There has been no shortage of studies and reports on the damage social media is doing society, especially to the young. Though I'm glad to see a movement forming against it, it's sad and somewhat pathetic that the conversation is hinging on the refusal to accept election defeat by one half of the electorate.
Those involved in developing, expanding, etc. social media know what they're complicit in and it extends far beyond, and is far worse, than simply having some moron elected.
I think people are confusing two things: Facebook and its first and main product, the News Feed (and to an extend, the advertising network embedded into it).
Facebook, or rather the Social and later, Entities Graphs are essential essential capacities. They are what really matters: who do you trust, who do you care about. Those are key, they are heavily defended from pretenders and they keep on unlocking a lot of essential value to any service leveraging it.
The best illustration of what that Graph represents is Messenger: you give some people the right to notify you (and a subset, access to an overlooked secondary Inbox); that service is essential. Having institutions like your airline, payments, be allowed in there is a big step forward. If Marcus manages that well, that extension will unlock a lot of the promisses of email, structurally removing the spam.
Having the News Feed inform that social and interest graph is a great way to get up-to-date information, but it comes with an indeed agressive behavioural growth hack. I do not believe that the level alarm around that is warranted, but what people see, political and social polarisation, etc. all those are real issues that Facebook Researchers have looked into. Other researchers have looked into that too, but usually with a very partial view and no access to extensive dataset.
I believe it is a problem that openly critical researchers can’t access that database; I don’t think that granting them access will necessarily help, though, because most media will happily apply a big selection bias on whatever comes out of academia, as they already do. But in spite of that limit, internal researchers have enough of freedom to point out issues. There are issues: they are a small team, too US-focused, tend to have liberal-intellectual bias, etc. but they feel, and are, responsible for those issues. More importantly, they are managed by people very willing to take in detailed, informed criticism.
Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign. They willingly identified and explained what happened, shared details about ‘the Russian interference’ which was a lot of about weaponasing dissent than ads. They did that because, unlike “the press” they have the means, intellectual and technical, feel the responsability and see it as their mission to help democracy, not let the party of their owner win no matter what.
I do not think that Facebook can’t close the News Feed, or revamp it entirely. They believe that its overall impact on democracy is still clearly positive because they measure it (quite well, actually; I have doubts about other aspects of their methodology but not that one). They have identified key ways it is being abused and they are working on fixes.
The hearing in the Senate was an ignorant and populist pandering from politicians whom I otherwise admired, them insistently proving they couldn’t get the sense of the scale of the transformation, but Facebook is catching up faster than ageing politicians.
Wising up, they will implement soluitons, most of them invisible. I suspect one of them is flagging aggressively partisan groups, preventing rage-baiting. I wished one of them was raising the profile of “the smartest of your opponent”. I know they will try, measure, re-think and improve their solution.
And so will the people who think chaos raises their profile, but not as well -- because they can’t survive the scrutiny that Facebook willfully accepted.
I remember my history class (in France) about “the Dreyfuss case”, a deeply polarising debate in the early XXth century (in abstract: Country vs. Justice; in practice: should a French officer condemned of treason, transparently because of prejudice for his Jewish heritage, be freed after evidence proved him innocent?) but I’ve been an exchange students in enough countries to know every country had gone through something similar. No one was in charge, and the only solution then was to forget; the Dreyfuss case stopped becoming an issue with WWI.
> I think people are confusing two things: Facebook and its first and main product, the News Feed…
I think that's naive and misses the forest for the trees. You may be technically correct (as you would be saying "people are confusing Google and its search engine"), but none of that structural pedantry relieves Facebook of any responsibility over its obliviousness about how it's affecting society.
> Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign.
No, Facebook's change of heart has been slow, incomplete, and didn't begin until well after the campaign ended.
> Facebook is not responsible for Trump’s election…
They (obviously?) are to some degree, so I find that a very bizarre thing to say. It's likely that even Facebook doesn't yet understand the full scope of their election influence.
> "Facebook’s vertiginous rise from “Hot or Not” knockoff to extra-governmental digital nation-state has alarmed a growing number of its original architects. “They look at the role Facebook now plays in society, and how Russia used it during the election to elect Trump, and they have this sort of ‘Oh my God, what have I done’ moment,” one early employee told my colleague Nick Bilton last month."
I read no further.
First, yes someone ran some ads, but to what end? Where they actually effective? Of the people who we fed said ads how many noticed them? Where of age to vote? Where real people not bots? AND changed their vote?
Where is the data that supports Russia elected Trump? Where?
Do I believe FB (and all - tech - companies) should be aware of the unintended of its products? Of course. Shiney and new is not a free pass on - moral, ethical and/or social - responsibility.
I'm not a Trump supporter. He'll be gone soon enough. However the incompetence and Orwellian habits of the mainstream media will remain. That should be a major concern for everyone.
84 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] thread"In Silicon Valley, a growing number of early Facebook employees regret the world they created."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/what-...
If that's what MZ believes, he's being selective in the studies he's reading. It's frightening that we have a very smart guy with a fatally flawed anthropological view of Facebook's effect.
Mass media technologies like Facebook/tv/radio/newspapers actually have the opposite effect: They increase tribalism and polarization.
Yes, social networks bring some people together... like distant relatives sharing more photos than the Kodak film days. Or a group that shares a hobby like anonymous unrelated guitar players talking about gear on a music forum.
However, asking for communication platforms to bridge the gap of Democrats vs Republicans or Christians vs Muslims or Pro-life vs Pro-choice doesn't work. What really happens is those groups use the technology to dig in their heels even further and double-down on their entrenched positions. Tribalism amplified to the max.
People tend to predominantly post things that make them look good, and reading that makes people feel like their own lives aren't as great as those of their friends and acquaintances.
Facebook is not making people feel happy. It's making them sad and envious of their friends.
TL;DR - Facebook is a "sausage factory", and only a few people know what actually goes on in there. Our collective human history can be used to justify pretty much anything. The chapter that is relevant to my point is that humans are very good at externalizing and abstracting the product for the sake of the customer. The thing with Facebook is that the product and the customer is the same: [two different sets of] people.
To your question, "Otherwise how could he look at himself in the mirror?": What do you use a mirror for that cannot be replaced or overcome with sufficient wealth?
=== The Long; Do Read
Even at the risk of drawing an incomplete, yet horrific analogy, I'll do so anyway. Facebook's users are product correct? Another product consumed by many people is meat. Most meat is prepared in slaughterhouses from animals bred and grown in factory farms for slaughter. There are a lot of procedures that are followed to make the extraction and sale of meat as economically profitable as possible. I don't know of all of them, but here are a few that I do know of
1) Feeding animals hormones to make them grow faster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
2) Feeding animals antibiotics to prevent outbreaks of disease within a herd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
3) Packing animals extremely close together (closer than they would be if they were free to wander unimpeded), so that they are exposed to their own waste in high concentrations and over a prolonged duration: https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare/ani... .
A whole lot from one page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming
4) The major milestone in 20th century poultry production was the discovery of vitamin D, which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round.
5) Meat-type chickens currently grow to market weight in six to seven weeks, whereas only fifty years ago it took three times as long.[Havenstein, G.B., P.R. Ferket, and M.A. Qureshi, 2003a. Growth, livability, and feed conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative 1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poult. Sci. 82:1500–1508] This is due to genetic selection and nutritional modifications (but not the use of growth hormones, which are illegal for use in poultry in the US and many other countries).
6) On average, a chicken lays one egg a day, but not on every day of the year. This varies with the breed and time of year. In 1900, average egg production was 83 eggs per hen per year. In 2000, it was well over 300.
7) The use of sow stalls (gestation crates) has resulted in lower production costs, however, this practice has led to more significant animal welfare concerns. Many of the world’s largest producers of pigs (U.S. and Canada) use sow stalls, but some nations (e.g. the UK) and some US States (e.g. Florida and Arizona) have banned them.
8) Piglets often receive range of treatments including castration, tail docking to reduce tail biting, teeth clipped (to reduce injuring their mother's nipples and prevent later tusk growth) and their ears notched to assist identification. Treatments are usually made without pain killers. Weak runts may be slain shortly after birth.
9) Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows a...
https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t...
End justifies the means, ala Bill Gates, type of reasoning. Will make it up to the world /God when I use the FB stock to do good.
Until you can answer those questions, society will keep drifting. Dan Carlin had a good argument which essentially boiled down to we are all in this together, but the obvious counter example to that is to make the walls higher and eventually to make the other group submit.
Does this ever really happen without complete extermination? I suspect this route is an illusion.
From my perspective facebooks net effect is positive compared to before because it exposes people to different opinions way more than before where it was litterally only someones closest friends, neighbours, family and the news that you had as sources.
Trump is an anamoly and his affect on the tribalism and polarization can't be taken for the norm yet I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him not Facebook.
There are plenty problems with facebook but from my perspective it's better than it's bad.
If it creates a filter bubble how can it then increase tribalism and polarization?
These are problems you face when you interface only with people who share very congruent values and obtain their news from the same source. If Facebook uses Skinner Box techniques to keep you on the site as long as possible, it’s not interested in outcomes that are good for you but might make you leave, like challenging your beliefs and values.
It's an oversimplification of how the algorithm actually works as there are plenty of non-political interestest involved too.
http://education.biu.ac.il/files/education/shared/science-20...
Conclusion: People are extremely aligned to viewpoints, reinforced by their friends, however they are less aligned than if they STRICTLY consumed media from their own viewpoint because they have some cross-cutting issues.
Key relative measure there and worth reading into more depth.
That's the point; he's not. His approval rating is 38% which is historically low, but that still means that tens of millions of Americans like what he's doing. If you don't know any of them, that says more about you and your bubble than him. (That applies to me as well; of all the people I know I'd be surprised if more than 5% approved of Trump).
I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased tribalism is because of him
I suspect it's largely the reverse. "Progressives" were rioting over Halloween costumes and the alt-right was making racist memes well before Trump came on the stage, and that's possibly because Facebook and other social media made it easier for them to organize.
I am well aware of people who approve of him, I also wasn't surprised when he won I expected it exactly because I don't live in a bubble.
I have plenty of good friends who voted Trump and Hillary and I understand why people would vote for either of them. I also understand why Trump still have a relatively large approval rating and disregarding his absurd and clumsy style I am not as negative towards his presidency.
I'm also honestly curious though. Care to elaborate why you're not as negative towards him? And if not in public, I'd really love to continue this by email (mine's in my profile).
I met a Trump voter from India who had spent more than 10 years and a lot of money to get his green card.
He complained about the Dreamers and how that basically was cheating what he had to do the official way.
These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone like Trump.
With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him. Because I don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it is I should be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.
By and large, his politics haven't really done much in any fundamental way. I am aware that there are specifics that can be put forward as "bad" but to me politics is a much larger game than just isolated events.
Fact is that we don't know what the consequence will be. The results of any presidents politics are often seen long after they left office.
So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal.
I benefit from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the problems it creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and I think Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in some fundamental ways.
What I hold even higher though is the US democratic process which I consider extremely impressive in it's ability to contain someone like Trump.
In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided by the checks and balances of the US democratic system.
I don't see any cause for real concern so far.
could you elaborate on capital-D Dreamers? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
> These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone like Trump. With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him. Because I don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it is I should be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.
Do you truly believe that his only failing is his communication style? I find myself troubled by the lack of decorum (weird, impulsive tweets, comments that make no sense whatsoever, etc.), locker-room comments like:
“Whoa!” Trump responds. “Whoa! I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
“Whatever you want,” Bush replies.
“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump replies. “You can do anything.”
While I don't know how I feel about the lack of 'decorum' I gotta admit that even my least politically correct locker-room talk hasn't been close to this kind of stuff.
I can understand wanting to vote against the status quo, but Trump just strikes me as way, way into crazy territory. How do you feel about these kinds of statements he makes? And again, I really am honestly inquisitive, and I'd be happy to move this to email.
> So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal. > I benefit from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the problems it creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and I think Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in some fundamental ways. What I hold even higher though is the US democratic process which I consider extremely impressive in it's ability to contain someone like Trump.
I'd describe my history and current situation as very similar. I suppose it's part of the reason why I'm so curious about all this, because I can see a parallel universe version of me voting for Trump. Sure, from my current universe this parallel universe version of me is alien, perhaps even repulsive, but it's somehow still me.
I find that fascinating, having had that experience once before (conservative evangelical until my early twenties. That version of me was actually me, not some 'brainwashed' version I can distance my current self from. I really was a young-earth creationist once).
> In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided by the checks and balances of the US democratic system. > I don't see any cause for real concern so far.
I wish I could be more certain about this, but based on my new consumption there do seem to be a number of very real, very negative effects. However, I'm not certain enough about that to say this with full conviction. If anyone can be more specific about the actual consequences of Trump's presidency, I'd love to hear it. So far I'm inclined to believe that it's worse than many of us think, but I also feel that a lot of the media I've been consuming has been unreasonably negative about Trump (and that strikes me as difficult to pull off).
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/daca-dreamers-immigra...
I am not a celebrity either but I have hung out with enough of them to see that "when you are a celebrity you can do anything" is pretty much true. Especially if you look good.
It's really a discussion of the privilege of being a celebrity more than anything from my point of view and I have no problem separating them which is probably why I don't consider it relevant with regards to Trump specifically. It's really a crazy world you live in when you are a celebrity.
I find it telling that you can't actually point to anything that Trump has done which is demonstratively bad in the way it's being portrayed by most media. All anyone really has is the indignation over his tweets and a few areas which I don't believe there is any consensus around on either side of the aisle.
You haven't spent any time thinking about this, I take it.
This is a really gross thing to say. Go read Louis C.K.'s statement as just one example out of many recent ones. There are a lot of rich playboys out there, but just because "they let you do it" doesn't mean you're not forcing yourself on them and you're not a disgusting fucking creep.
You are welcome to feel it's a gross thing to say I am not expecting you to understand what I am talking about. I was simply answering someone who asked for my opinion.
As a society it is something we don't recognize as such.... at least not yet. It is a violence that we all do to ourselves as a collective. Partly I think because of an economic system that is essentially based on necessity and survival. This economic system, is a reflection of us, so it's a catch 22 situation whereby living in fear makes us dissociate, and while dissociated we act from the "map" not the actual reality... so we keep spinning the wheels of these comanies as well as the old mindsets.
I don't find it a stretch to believe Facebook could have the same effect.
Online Social Networking and Mental Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183915/
"Addiction to online social networking, as well as Internet addiction in general, are recent and insufficiently investigated phenomena, frequently discussed and sometimes disputed in the psychiatric literature.30–35 The addictive nature of SNS is supported primarily by the mental preoccupation of many chronic SNS users who as a result tend to neglect other aspects of their social functioning such as family and offline friends. In addition, according to our own observations, sudden cessation of online social networking (i.e., lack of Internet connection) may in some chronic users cause signs and symptoms that at least partially resemble the ones seen during drug/alcohol/nicotine abstinence syndrome."
And just googling "facebook addiction nih", it looks like there is plenty more material of this sort.
The psychological tactics facebook and others use trigger the release of dopamine just like cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and gambling.
You should read: "power to build community and bring the world together... inside our walled garden".
Facebook has never been about building technologies aiming at decentralizing the web, so any power they'll give people will be on their own rules and domain.
Riding a friend's Ferrari is rare. Reading about the equivalent every day makes you feel like everyone has a Ferrari but you.
Apart from that I use Messenger to talk to friends and relatives.
I feel like I'm the only happy Facebook user here.
I find myself intensely disliking my neighbors if I’m on it enough. It feels dystopian.
When the cameras are off, he's all about the money. Don't forget that he once called people who willingly upload their data to Facebook "dumb fucks". Yes, I know, it was a long time ago and he's matured since then, whatever. It's still a smoking gun that Facebook was not created with idealism about "human connections" in mind. At best that part came later, if it came at all.
I don't think this is (so much) about money for him. If he weren't a 'true believer' his ego would have to come to grips with the idea that he has created sorrow for millions of people all around the world his whole adult life.
Those involved in developing, expanding, etc. social media know what they're complicit in and it extends far beyond, and is far worse, than simply having some moron elected.
Facebook, or rather the Social and later, Entities Graphs are essential essential capacities. They are what really matters: who do you trust, who do you care about. Those are key, they are heavily defended from pretenders and they keep on unlocking a lot of essential value to any service leveraging it.
The best illustration of what that Graph represents is Messenger: you give some people the right to notify you (and a subset, access to an overlooked secondary Inbox); that service is essential. Having institutions like your airline, payments, be allowed in there is a big step forward. If Marcus manages that well, that extension will unlock a lot of the promisses of email, structurally removing the spam.
Having the News Feed inform that social and interest graph is a great way to get up-to-date information, but it comes with an indeed agressive behavioural growth hack. I do not believe that the level alarm around that is warranted, but what people see, political and social polarisation, etc. all those are real issues that Facebook Researchers have looked into. Other researchers have looked into that too, but usually with a very partial view and no access to extensive dataset.
I believe it is a problem that openly critical researchers can’t access that database; I don’t think that granting them access will necessarily help, though, because most media will happily apply a big selection bias on whatever comes out of academia, as they already do. But in spite of that limit, internal researchers have enough of freedom to point out issues. There are issues: they are a small team, too US-focused, tend to have liberal-intellectual bias, etc. but they feel, and are, responsible for those issues. More importantly, they are managed by people very willing to take in detailed, informed criticism.
Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign. They willingly identified and explained what happened, shared details about ‘the Russian interference’ which was a lot of about weaponasing dissent than ads. They did that because, unlike “the press” they have the means, intellectual and technical, feel the responsability and see it as their mission to help democracy, not let the party of their owner win no matter what.
I do not think that Facebook can’t close the News Feed, or revamp it entirely. They believe that its overall impact on democracy is still clearly positive because they measure it (quite well, actually; I have doubts about other aspects of their methodology but not that one). They have identified key ways it is being abused and they are working on fixes.
The hearing in the Senate was an ignorant and populist pandering from politicians whom I otherwise admired, them insistently proving they couldn’t get the sense of the scale of the transformation, but Facebook is catching up faster than ageing politicians.
Wising up, they will implement soluitons, most of them invisible. I suspect one of them is flagging aggressively partisan groups, preventing rage-baiting. I wished one of them was raising the profile of “the smartest of your opponent”. I know they will try, measure, re-think and improve their solution.
And so will the people who think chaos raises their profile, but not as well -- because they can’t survive the scrutiny that Facebook willfully accepted.
I remember my history class (in France) about “the Dreyfuss case”, a deeply polarising debate in the early XXth century (in abstract: Country vs. Justice; in practice: should a French officer condemned of treason, transparently because of prejudice for his Jewish heritage, be freed after evidence proved him innocent?) but I’ve been an exchange students in enough countries to know every country had gone through something similar. No one was in charge, and the only solution then was to forget; the Dreyfuss case stopped becoming an issue with WWI.
Fa...
I think that's naive and misses the forest for the trees. You may be technically correct (as you would be saying "people are confusing Google and its search engine"), but none of that structural pedantry relieves Facebook of any responsibility over its obliviousness about how it's affecting society.
> Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign.
No, Facebook's change of heart has been slow, incomplete, and didn't begin until well after the campaign ended.
> Facebook is not responsible for Trump’s election…
They (obviously?) are to some degree, so I find that a very bizarre thing to say. It's likely that even Facebook doesn't yet understand the full scope of their election influence.
I read no further.
First, yes someone ran some ads, but to what end? Where they actually effective? Of the people who we fed said ads how many noticed them? Where of age to vote? Where real people not bots? AND changed their vote?
Where is the data that supports Russia elected Trump? Where?
Do I believe FB (and all - tech - companies) should be aware of the unintended of its products? Of course. Shiney and new is not a free pass on - moral, ethical and/or social - responsibility.
I'm not a Trump supporter. He'll be gone soon enough. However the incompetence and Orwellian habits of the mainstream media will remain. That should be a major concern for everyone.
Stopped reading right about there.
Just a few hours before this story, we had one titled "Is it time to stop trusting Google search?".
It's as if someone gave a command and all the media is acting in unison.
Lets see what stories tomorrow brings. Honestly, there hasn't been a day in a few months without an attack on social media and tech companies.