also it completely infuriates me how he’s like, “aw shucks, I don’t open up much because I don’t want to get things wrong!” meanwhile he created a platform that facilitates billions of people doing that.
" In Adam Fisher’s “Valley of Genius,” an oral history of Silicon Valley, an early employee named Ezra Callahan muses, “ ‘How much was the direction of the internet influenced by the perspective of nineteen-, twenty-, twenty-one-year-old well-off white boys?’ That’s a real question that sociologists will be studying forever.”"
At Facebook’s annual shareholder meeting, in May, executives struggled to keep order. An investor who interrupted the agenda to argue against Zuckerberg’s renomination as chairman was removed. Outside, an airplane flew a banner that read “ you broke democracy. ”
Sounds about right.
In 2012, Facebook data scientists used nearly seven hundred thousand people as guinea pigs, feeding them happy or sad posts to test whether emotion is contagious on social media. (They concluded that it is.) When the findings were published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , they caused an uproar among users, many of whom were horrified that their emotions may have been surreptitiously manipulated. In an apology, one of the scientists wrote, “In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.”
Isn’t this the point of IRB?! Did they get to skip that part?
She paraphrased those terms as “It’s your data, but you give us a royalty-free global license to do, basically, whatever we want.” Imagine, she said, if a brick-and-mortar business asked to copy all your photographs for its unlimited, unspecified uses. “Your children, from the very first day until the confirmation, the rehearsal dinner for the wedding, the wedding itself, the first child being baptized. You would never accept that,” she said. “But this is what you accept without a blink of an eye when it’s digital.”
Gonna use this analogy in class.
Zuckerberg is hoping to erect a scalable system, an orderly decision tree that accounts for every eventuality and exception, but the boundaries of speech are a bedevilling problem that defies mechanistic fixes.
I feel no hope about that direction.
yeah they had no IRB. it’s incredible stuff. totally unethical. and basically no consequences for them.
it’s a really good one. anything to bring it into a physical context like this is so meaningful to people.
yeah so let’s hope FB implodes on itself first. although there will be other FBs in the future, and we have to figure out political solutions to them.
I heard an interview with authors of the National Academy of Sciences article. When questioned about the privacy violations they just blanked. When pressed they reluctantly said they needed to consider users more, but, imho, their insincerity came through loud and clear.
“In hindsight, the research benefits of the paper may not have justified all of this anxiety.”
They are concerned with the PR fallout, not they violated one of fundamental ethics of science by experimenting on people without their consent.
yepppppppp. this is what we get from these too big to fail companies. just absolutely unethical unaccountable abhorrent behavior all the way down.