Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies in Washington

Re:Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies ... by taurath on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:26PM (#28767051)

Glenn’s argument is a slippery slope fallacy, and you’ve thrown in some guilt by partisan association in there too. Simply stopping amplifying content for purely engagement purposes would be a great step in the right direction, for any side. IMO a reasonable goal for what ails Facebook is not to increase moderation, but to reduce polarization by stopping incentivizing people from being polarizing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies ... by raxxorrax on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @03:20AM (#28770166)

She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media companies. That is the factual result of what is proposed and this has been a problem in the past. Political manipulation of content institutionalized. This is a horrible approach by any objective meassure and it would obviously also institutionalize Facebook.

Greenwalds argument isn't a slippery slope fallacy but that is off topic and of no relevance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies ... by taurath on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @03:48AM (#28770323)

I don’t see where that’s what she proposed, I only saw forcing transparency - maybe you can fill in the blank there?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies ... by raxxorrax on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @03:59AM (#28770391)

The suggestions she proposed are at the end of the article.

edit: Under "An array of possible next steps"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook whistleblower hearing: Frances Haugen testifies ... by asabjorn on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:45PM (#28767228)

No, the primary argument I made was around the ideology with which she to my estimation seek to apply censorship. If she and whom she ally with succeed there will be further asymmetry in what viewpoints are censored. That is also Glenn's concern. Her associations and donations are just corroborative facts.

If people find a friend to be polarizing and rude they can just unfollow them, that is their business and choice.

> IMO a reasonable goal for what ails Facebook is not to increase moderation, but to reduce polarization by stopping incentivizing people

This is an interesting discussion. How do you see facebook doing this without moderation?

So far Facebook and Twitter algorithmic approaches, e.g. shadowbanning and flagging, are often applied through moderation with an ideological tilt. The people programming and running the systems are after all people as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]