fakescience

Likely referring to this article [1].

However, the claim that they made "hundreds of thousands of people fall into a depression" is pretty exaggerated - FB demonstrated it could influence the mood of users via changes to the algorithm, but the overall effect size was small (Cohen's d = 0.001).

I am very critical of FB and this type of research, but don't know if anyone became depressed over the experiment. It's possible, but wasn't demonstrated.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full

Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Yes, the arguments you outline would also be ways to reduce cognitive dissonance as well ("if we didn't do it, others would").

I don't think Google would stop all wars by not contributing to this project. But Google, and the employees who work at Google, has power - a kind of power that's very, very different from my power as an individual when paying taxes or when voting for a federal employee (behaviors that create dissonance for me because they contribute to the war machine). I think that power can, and should, be used to prevent wars - not to make them "cleaner". The small attempt at organizing protests made by some employees at the company was a good step, but the only one I have heard of (maybe there have been others?) and I want the people who have the most access to power to start thinking about what they are doing and trying to make more positive changes.

Consume less. Be more mindful of environmental damage. Speak out against the oppressive regimes that help murder people.

Do you think anyone in a position of political power truly thinks of themselves as a "thug"? I imagine, in their own ways, they think they are doing a "just" and noble deed. Much like the way you characterize America's perpetual war machine, that has destabilized the world in direct ways that supposedly require us to go BACK and "steer them...in the direction our fellow citizens desire." See : Iran, ISIS, several Latin American countries, etc.

To any Google Employees reading this. Don't worry! There are SEVERAL ways you can reduce any cognitive dissonance you might be experiencing as you read more about the evils your company is committing :

+ rationalization of your own behavior : "I'm not doing this work...I'm working on projects that help people. And ads. But ads are pretty neutral compared to bombing people."

+ rationalization of others' behavior : "Bombing people isn't evil, since it's helping the military kill MORE _bad guys_ and LESS good guys. And gals. and children."

+ change your thoughts about yourself : "Maybe I'm not as good of a person as I thought I was..." [note : this one might be hardest to do!]

+ change your own behavior : Quit Google, or even better organize your fellow workers into some form of collective action (strike!) to remake the company into something that better fits your values and ethics.

Users are the only people who will be able to set limits on Facebook's power, and the only way to do that will be to form some kind of union to organize collective action. Feel like there's a learned helplessness effect, though, that has settled into people.

never going to happen, unless users organize some kind of collective action. Imagine how quickly Facebook would start to make changes if a bulk of users deactivated accounts in protest, similar to a strike [1].

Easy to do in theory, hard to do in practice.

[1] https://medium.com/@oddbert2000/call-for-a-facebook-users-st...

agreed. Facebook users need to organize. Easy to do in theory, hard to do in practice.

[1] https://medium.com/@oddbert2000/call-for-a-facebook-users-st...

Doubt that lawmakers will really protect users. Think the only way to lead to substantive change would be for users to take collective action through protests [1]. Imagine how quickly the company would take action to make real changes to user privacy if a Facebook User strike took place...

[1] https://medium.com/@oddbert2000/call-for-a-facebook-users-st...

you're correct that there's a similar process in real life as online. the issues are that online (a) these effects are more automated and distributed online than in real-life (Toyama nicely summarizes this as "technology as amplifier" [1]) and that (b) the methods of automation and distribution are (by design and intent) less visible online than in real-life.

People have little ability to change A, but could exert influence on companies to combat B if sufficient pressure were exerted...

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/06/why-te...

yes, and just like we would want people to design roads in ways that limit driver deaths, we should insist that people design facebook in ways that limit negative consequences inherent to social networks. the problem is that facebook (a) is opaque about these decisions and (b) has shown that it cares more about maximizing profit than it cares about safety and security.

the only way to change the infrastructure is to gain control over it. hard to do when power is entirely held by Facebook. Regulation is one way to exercise control, but I'd rather see some kind of mass boycott / unionization among social network users to force Facebook to be more transparent and secure about user data (for what it's worth, I've tried to set something up here [1] and here [2]).

[1] https://medium.com/@oddbert2000/call-for-a-facebook-users-st...

[2] https://www.facebook.com/pg/Internet-Users-Union-12831967051...

Call for a facebook user strike on May 1st.

#May1FBstrike

https://medium.com/@oddbert2000/call-for-a-facebook-users-st...

Read this earlier today. I was struck by the idea of "unionizing" users to help them take action against corporate interests who ultimately control user data. This makes particular sense when you think about data as a new form of labor that is produced by the many (users) but controlled by a few in power (the people who work at technology companies).

This idea has been around for a while [1], yet no "unions" for users of social networks seem to currently exists. Ironically, organizing a union seems like something that could easily be done via social media [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hacker_Manifesto [2] https://www.facebook.com/Internet-User-Union-128319670511322...

It's not possible to be a "meritocracy" based simply on hiring "the best" without accounting for all the institutional problems when it comes to sexism and sex discrimination that give men the ability to more easily be "the best" than women.

Being able to "ignore" labels is a perfect example of the kind of privilege men have access to in our society. And the fact that these comments from from a username that is reference to a penis / sexual act is just another layer to tech's issues creating a tolerant space for meritocracy to thrive.