Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Facebook Advertising Businesses Communications Social Networks The Internet Politics

Facebook Is a 'Living, Breathing Crime Scene,' Says Former Tech Insider (nbcnews.com) 144

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: With more than 2 billion users, Facebook's reach now rivals that of Christianity and exceeds that of Islam. However, the network's laser focus on profits and user growth has come at the expense of its users, according to one former Facebook manager who is now speaking out against the social platform. "One of the things that I saw consistently as part of my job was the company just continuously prioritized user growth and making money over protecting users," the ex-manager, Sandy Parakilas, who worked at Facebook for 16 months, starting in 2011, told NBC News. During his tenure at Facebook, Parakilas led third-party advertising, privacy and policy compliance on Facebook's app platform. "Facebook is a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election -- and only they have full access to what happened," said Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google. His work centers on how technology can ethically steer the thoughts and actions of the masses on social media and he's been called "the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience" by The Atlantic magazine.

In response to the comments, Facebook issued a statement saying it is a "vastly different company" from when it was founded. "We are taking many steps to protect and improve people's experience on the platform," the statement said. "In the past year, we've worked to destroy the business model for false news and reduce its spread, stop bad actors from meddling in elections, and bring a new level of transparency to advertising. Last week, we started prioritizing meaningful posts from friends and family in News Feed to help bring people closer together. We have more work to do and we're heads down on getting it done."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Is a 'Living, Breathing Crime Scene,' Says Former Tech Insider

Comments Filter:
  • .....continuously prioritized user growth and making money over protecting users

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:15PM (#55950109)

      .....continuously prioritized user growth and making money over protecting users

      Except Christianity is criticized for controlling thoughts, while Facebook is being criticized for not doing enough though control.

      Do we really want Facebook, or any other corporation, to "steer the thoughts and actions of the masses"?

      Is it really Facebook's fault that too many people voted the "wrong way" in 2016? Who gets to decide which thoughts are "right"?

      Personally, I prefer to not be steered.

      • by slick7 ( 1703596 )

        .....continuously prioritized user growth and making money over protecting users

        Except Christianity is criticized for controlling thoughts, while Facebook is being criticized for not doing enough though control.

        Do we really want Facebook, or any other corporation, to "steer the thoughts and actions of the masses"?

        Is it really Facebook's fault that too many people voted the "wrong way" in 2016? Who gets to decide which thoughts are "right"?

        Personally, I prefer to not be steered.

        To paraphrase, "Hive mind, Hive mind...what is hive mind?" Critical thinking has a cost, think for yourself. No one else can do it for you with impartiality.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Do we really want Facebook, or any other corporation, to "steer the thoughts and actions of the masses"?

        No, we just want them to recognize that they are now some kind of news outlet for a lot of people. In most countries the news media is expected to have standards and at least try not to print outright bullshit, so it would be nice if Facebook could say do something about fake viral stories. Not ban them, but maybe just throw up some debunking stories or opposing views along side them. Burst the bubble.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      You mean islam, the cult created by a pedophile warlord. The cult invading civilised countries and turning them into shitholes.

      The cult which pretends to be a religion but is really a fascist ideological invasion designed to turn everyone into slaves.

    • by gx5000 ( 863863 )
      "continuously prioritized user growth and making money over protecting users"

      As in every Religion.....
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In response to the comments, Facebook issued a statement saying it is a "vastly different company" from when it was founded.

    Yes, back then it was founded by a Sociopath. As we all know, Corporations are Psycopaths [politicususa.com]. Totally different breed. Vastly different, one might say.

  • Some questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:45PM (#55949929) Homepage Journal

    "Facebook is a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election -- and only they have full access to what happened,"

    A couple of questions here.

    1) What crime, exactly, was committed?
    2) Is Sandy Parakilas, the manager in question, more intelligent or better informed than the average person? (The average person with a full-time job not related to understanding political issues.)
    3) It this another example of a liberal who still, 18 months later, can't get over the loss of her candidate and has made a shocking pronouncement to get viewer engagement and generally get noticed?

    Is this really a problem?

    No one worries about issues of propaganda when it was the MSM's version of fake news.

    It's been over and done with for 18 months, Trump isn't literally Hitler, and the country is doing pretty well. All things considered, we seem to have chosen the better of two candidates.

    Why is it such a big issue?

    • Re:Some questions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:59PM (#55950011)

      1) What crime, exactly, was committed?

      Trump won.

      2) Is Sandy Parakilas, the manager in question,

      Actually, the quote is from Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google.

      What is more concerning is this: "His work centers on how technology can ethically steer the thoughts and actions of the masses on social media". Peachy -- Facebook is wanting to "steer the thoughts and actions" of its users, and do it "ethically". I'm pretty sure that they can't do it ethically, if they stick to their purpose for existing.

      • Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:21PM (#55950149)

        1) What crime, exactly, was committed?

        Trump won.

        More importantly, Trump humiliated Wall Street's chosen candidate (Jeb Bush) in the primary, and then beat their back-up candidate in the general election. Since there was no "legitimate" way for that to happen, it is clear that the American people were "tricked" by criminals, or even worse, Russian criminals.

        • Re:Some questions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday January 18, 2018 @05:57AM (#55951975) Journal

          I am really getting tired of this, "how Russia manipulated the election BS".

          Look folks its a democracy, people get a ton of information thrown at them from all kinds of sources, because we are open society, and than they make a decision - vote.

          That is how the system works. Unless you can show me someone actually tampered with the balloting process or some kind of quid pro quo arrangement between the candidates and a foreign actor; I don't really see Russian interference as materiel. I mean so what if Wikileaks is a tool of the Russian government and so what if they timed leaks to damage the Clinton campaign? Does that make the documents they released untrue? When we have things like DKIM signatures and stuff on many of them that allowed verification? -No. So we the voters learned some facts, quite independent of who the messenger was. But but but its not fair! -- Okay well there were super pacs paying foreign spies to create BS dossiers about the other candidate. This how our politics works folks. If Russia running some facebook ads has your panties in a twist Fusion GPS should bother you at least as much; and that is before we get into the all the Clinton serving tweaks to the FBI memo and the almost public interference with investigating the former secretary of states handling of classified documents by the previous administration.

          The entire narrative is stupid butt hurt by people who just can't get it thru their heads that they lost.

          • And I'm getting really tired about being told how all my problems stem from my inability to get over my candidate losing over a year ago.

            Guess what - nobody loves to bring up Hillary's name as much as a Trump supporter.

            • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              I only brought it up because its relevant in the context of the election. Legal arguments aside you cant make a moral argument there was serious problem with the election when both sides were doing equivalent things.

              Honestly I am not even sure it was equivalent; when the current administration uses a unverified opposition research provided by a candidate a pretext to launch an investigation and abuses the secrecy of the FISA court process so they have prextext to violate the constitutional rights of the op

          • Unless you can show me someone actually tampered with the balloting process

            Reality [wikipedia.org] has evidence.

            • Reality has evidence.

              No, "Reality" has a criminal conviction for release of classified documents. One of those documents was a classified report from the NSA talking about ATTEMPTED Russian hacking of a voting software company.

              1. Attempted is not "actually tampered".

              2. Hacking a software company is not "tampered with the balloting process."

              "The report suggested that Russian hackers attacked a U.S. voting software supplier." That's not proof that they succeeded. It can mean that someone that someone thinks was "them damn Russ

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        The crime was delusions of power, they believed their own advertising about their advertising abilities. Reality is, it was more about thought resonance. Consider the typical person's standing political thought state, a kind of endlessly repeating quite complex musical note. When it comes to group alignment, people automatically tend to resonate towards similar political notes, also while trying to drown out competing notes, attempting change them to align with their tune.

        Facebook, like all databases, simp

      • We can only assume that anyone who gets hired as an ethicist at Google must be a really evil-minded person.

        What was Google's new motto again? Oh yeah - "fuck you, plebs, that's why".

      • His work centers on how technology can ethically steer the thoughts and actions of the masses on social media". Peachy -- Facebook is wanting to "steer the thoughts and actions" of its users, and do it "ethically". I'm pretty sure that they can't do it ethically, if they stick to their purpose for existing.
        Zen Fascists will control you, 100% natural! You will jog for the master race, and always wear the happy face.
      • What the fuck is a "design ethicist"?
    • by dAzED1 ( 33635 )
      Are you positive that Jan2018 is 18 months after Nov2016? Repeating that twice would make the rest of your drivel suspect for anyone who didn't know anything about anything that has happened since then, nor anything about the candidates (ie, someone non-biased looking to evaluate the soundness of your overall comment). Just a heads-up.
    • All things considered, we seem to have chosen the better of two candidates.

      I'm inclined to agree with you on that one. Hilary Clinton was a competent, hawkish psychopath with the knowledge, skills, and connections to do some real harm in the world, e.g. ramping up military conflict within and between countries, e.g. Libya and Syria, whereas Trump is incompetent and severely limited from doing much harm by his narcissistic personality disorder. The worst Trump is managing to do is to encourage the alt-right to be more active, aggressive, vocal, and violent at home (which is terribl

      • I think most people do trust what comes out the white House.

        After all, calling some countries shitholes is a pretty accurate reflection of those countries. Or are you considering holidaying in any of them anytime soon? No? Is that because they're shitholes (for want of a longer description of their general lack of progress towards modern civilisation caused by whatever factors, but mainly corruption and crime)

        In my country, we call various towns shitholes (eg Clacton on Sea), and even many residents would a

        • Your comments are (all too common) expressions of fundamental attribution error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Put people in a different environment and under different circumstances and see how much their behaviour and outlooks on life change. You know, like that Syrian Arab Muslim refugee, Steve Jobs.

          Trump is an extreme example of a bullsh**ter and the media, whatever their political leaning, are left with the dilemma of Brandolini's law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is an order of

          • and your comments are expressions of confirmation bias - you want Trump to be useless, so all you surround yourself with are examples and comments of his uselessness.

            I don't doubt Trump is an expert politician (certainly isn't) but that's a good thing. I don't doubt some of his policies have been lucky rather than planned in their outcome, but that's not unusual for so many who give off an air of certainty about them that is really a mask of "fingers crossed".

            trump really does seem to be doing better than s

    • 1) "A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime." (Politifact [politifact.com])

      2) Who knows or cares? Is the criticism valid? That's the important question.

      3) Get used to the criticism continuing, especially with Mueller's investigation. If it turns out illegal foreign influence turned the election, people have every right to be angry and demand justice be served. A c
    • >and the country is doing pretty well

      Materialistically, humanity always have been doing pretty well since the primitive times. We have never been to the brink of extinction.

      You take a stupid WSJ bropaganda on DJIE as an indicator, I bet.

    • "1) What crime, exactly, was committed?" For instance; in my country (and several others) there's legislation on handling of personal information and data collection. So, if you want to collect data on our citizens, you ask for a special permission from an administrative bureau which handles these matters. They set all kinds of conditions and protocols, but you can expect to get their permission for health-related research, some advanced demographic research, etc. on condition to prove your methods and sec
  • by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:49PM (#55949953) Journal
    It may have that many /accounts/, but it does not have that many /users/. It lists 240m in the US, for instance, when there's only 323m people here; I know a lot of people without a facebook account. Almost everyone I know that has a facebook account, has /multiple/ facebook accounts. I also know that facebook creates shadow accounts for people, attempting to track their activities online, despite those people not really having an opt-in facebook "account." I'd really like to see some data on how they come up with these absurd numbers, and proof that they're figuring out who has multiple accounts and only counting them as one "user."
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Kind of like Christianity as cited. Lots of people identify as such, but a large number of them are fakes.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It may have that many /accounts/, but it does not have that many /users/. It lists 240m in the US, for instance, when there's only 323m people here; I know a lot of people without a facebook account.

      Long story short, *everybody* has a Facebook account, whether they want it or know about.

    • by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:58PM (#55950007) Journal
      when you go to insist that those without a facecrack account really are such a tiny fraction, factor in that there are 22m people in US between age 0 to 4, who arguably can't have any account at all (so, now we're down to 301m),another 22m from 5-9 who a large part of still wouldn't understand what facebook is thus their parents are the real "user," and another 12m that are over 80 and yeah, say what you will but a lot of those folks also don't have an account. Let's be conservative and just pull 11m of those 33 in the second 2 groups, and then you have 290m people who are vaguely possible to be on facebook...then you gota think that between homeless, the clinically depressed, the disabled, and etc some portion of those don't get on. Then the 2.5m people in jail - some portion of those aren't getting on. Before long you're down to the 240m number, which would suggest only 4 of us are smart enough not to be on facebook. No. Their numbers are, and always have been, extremely hyper-inflated, for purposes of appealing to their investors and advertisers.
    • No shit, I use my FB account about as much as I go to church, which is never.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:57PM (#55949993)

    Facebook was defiantly helpful to Trump getting elected - but not how people like this think.

    People are fed Fake News all the time, from all sorts of sources. None of that really matters to what they choose though.

    What they choose, is what they like, modulo what is acceptable.

    The one thing that Facebook (and Twitter) allowed for, was for lots of conservatives to realize there are lots of conservatives. That may not seem like a surprise but when for decades TV has hardly ever shown you any, people start to think there are very few around.

    When able to connect with other like minded people of any group, people start to realize there are more of them than they think, which is very empowering. It's what made the gay rights movement so successful, it's what made the recent wave of sexual assault allegations from Hollywood so successful.

    Like them, conservatives realized there were others who felt the same way, and it energized them. They were a bit more open in voicing support than they might have been. They voted in greater numbers than they would have before. They started questioning what was being fed to them and started thinking.

    Like it or not, the same engine that has helped people on the left is helping people on the right. Is that really such a bad thing, that people are able to find other people who like what they do? I find it hard to call that a crime.

    • What they choose, is what they like, modulo what is acceptable.

      What the hell does that mean?

      • by dAzED1 ( 33635 )
        Nothing. He's miss-using the word. choose / acceptable != X with a remainder of like, or any other rearrangement of the 3 components.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      FB had no influence on the election. Also the "Russians" didn't as well. It was a normal election cycle.

      It's simple enough to deduce that the presidential election changes the party in power nearly every eight years. Republicans would have gotten more votes if Trump wasn't running. The Clinton campaign was anemic at best and arrogant at worst, didn't energize anyone in particular, and many who voted for her were simply against Trump anyway. Also they didn't exactly campaign in states they needed to and

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        FB had no influence on the election. Also the "Russians" didn't as well. It was a normal election cycle.

        Are you seriously suggesting that the investigation of the Clinton emails a week before the vote had zero influence on the result? It was all over the news day after day after day, and the Trump campaign wouldn't shut up about it. In fact "crooked Hilary" was a key part of his campaign.

    • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:10PM (#55950083)

      The one thing that Facebook (and Twitter) allowed for, was for lots of conservatives to realize there are lots of conservatives.

      I'm not a conservative, but I know (and have known) a lot of conservatives - and I'm a lot older than Facebook and even the World Wide Web. I was in college when Reagan got elected.

      Pretty much every conservative I've known has assumed that I was the token liberal* in their circle and that I was part of a tiny minority - that the vast majority of Americans were like them and not like me. So this idea that somehow conservatives have until recently thought they were isolated and a minority really doesn't fit with what i've observed in the real world over the past 50+ years.

      * Funnily enough, I have several rather liberal friends who think I'm really conservative. In 1980 I voted for Anderson, so both sides hated me.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @10:57PM (#55951125)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I think you are correct. But I must admit that, with me, there's an additional aspect to this.

          My positions on various issues range all over the political spectrum, so I can find usually find something to disagree with most people on if I want to look for it. And I must admit at times I can get in a mood where I'd rather argue with someone about the stuff we disagree on than to talk about the things we agree on - which certainly feeds into the "conservatives think I'm liberal, while liberals think I'm conser

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Indeed, what social media was used for was to move the window of acceptable politics hard to the right.

        The Bannon email leaks were pretty informative on this subject. Social media was used as a gateway to nationalist ideas. That made ideas like building a wall to keep Mexicans out or banning Muslims acceptable.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      What fake news? A political candidate with stamina and great health gives a speech in different states and cities all over the USA.
      During the election the votes in every state get counted under party supervision and a winner in the different states wins.
      Social media did not sway voters. Seeing and hearing a real political leader in their own state mention topics they wanted to listen to wins US elections.
      Not talking down to many voters from a few elite costal states wins state elections all over the U
    • Like it or not, the same engine that has helped people on the left is helping people on the right. Is that really such a bad thing, that people are able to find other people who like what they do? I find it hard to call that a crime.

      Completely agree. What people seem to conveniently forget was that back in 2008 and 2012, the media and politicos lauded how President Obama's campaign was able to leverage social media in ways never seen. In liberal circles, it was lauded as a great force for change and political mobilization. Therefore, people really shouldn't have been surprised that other parties and factions would study, adapt and evolve those same techniques.

    • "People are fed Fake News all the time, from all sorts of sources. None of that really matters to what they choose though."

      When you can't tell facts from reality, it CERTAINLY affects your judgement. I listen and watch pretty much everything including CNN , PBS, Fox News, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Absolutely NOTHING comes close to the fact twisting deception of Sean Hannity and Fox "News". 6 months before Trump is elected, the low unemployment rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a "LIE". Th

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We are expected to believe this? This Russian conspiracy stuff is getting to Pizzagate levels of wackiness. Democrats need to get a grip.

  • Other view.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by outlander ( 140799 ) on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:07PM (#55950059)

    I think that a lot of what happened - which is to say, the fake accounts and such - stem less from malfeasance on FB's part than on sheer institutional inability to deal with scaling. They have scaled up hard and fast in the last several years, and despite having excellent technical staff (I worked for a business supplying some), the business (which is to say, Zuckerberg and the rest of the upper management team) has not really understood the scope of what they were trying to do. Keeping the site online and functional has sucked up a surprising number of cycles, and that left a lot fewer cycles for governance or review behavior.

    Hopefully, as they get their config management under control, they'll have cycles to deal with various bad actors. But it's going to take a cultural shift both inside FB (mgt team and memes to the devops staff) and users. I'm curious to see if any of the attempts will work or if it'll become MySpace n, where n is a large number.

    • And this is pretty much how it always is. Nobody had ever built something quite like Facebook before. Yeah there was "MySpace." But not really the same. And in the process of trying to build something, it's easy to incorrectly estimate downsides and risk. And, more importantly, anybody who is looking at those things won't grow as fast and actually has a competitive disadvantage. So it's no surprise that the company that grew to the top was the one that was hyper-focused on building their platform.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:22PM (#55950159)

    "Facebook is a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election."

    A year later and the Left still can't admit that Hillary was a horrible candidate who alienated/ignored/insulted so much of the electorate that her loss was on par with "Dewey Defeats Truman."

    Unless you want another four years of Trump, get off the soapbox, admit that your candidate lost, reevaluate your positions, and choose another candidate for 2020.

    On the other hand, I'm sure that if Hillary runs again in 2020 she will definitely win this time - lol.

  • "Facebook issued a statement saying it is a "vastly different company" from when it was founded."

    Facebook may have new business units today, but it is not fundamentally different than it was yesteryear. It is still a giant forum with some calendars mixed in." They sell ads. That has been the model since at least when their base grew to over a million users.

    Most companies won't put their name behind an ad shown during a show they don't agree with. Facebook is monetizing ad space meant to incite. Anyon

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      People joined during the web 2.0 expecting US freedom of speech that every other web site, past web 2.0 brand offered.
      Now its all SJW reporting, banning, removing content, links and accounts.
      A change away from traditional US web freedoms.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's the old problem of capitalism: If you don't put profit at the very top of your priorities, above human life, above the end of the world, then you will always lose to somebody else who is willing to go further than you. It selects for psychopaths and psychopathic behavior. Like Zuckerberg. And kills off everything else.

    Which is a disadvantage, because on this planet, the most successful lifeforms are social lifeforms. Those with empathy. It's a strong strategical advantage.
    But unfortunately, only in the

  • I honestly think Facebook is in a deepening crisis. Just look around at who is using it, and what they are using it for. They must take responsibility for the Fake News issue, and not just for Trump, but there was also evidence of interference with Brexit and other democratic elections. They must take responsibility for their users postings. Then there is the whole dopamine reward design that is embeded within it, they make it as addictive as they can by design according the the people that designed it for

  • > With more than 2 billion users, Facebook's reach now rivals that of Christianity and exceeds that of Islam

    That's journalism for you. Why not take cell phone users or TV owners or people with two eyes?

    I am drowning in the kingdom of imbeciles.

  • F**K Facebook.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...