"'It’s just like cigarettes,' Haugen said this week in testimony before a Senate Commerce subcommittee. 'Teenagers don’t have good self-regulation. They say explicitly, "I feel bad when I use Instagram, and yet I can’t stop."'... Society doesn’t have an interest in keeping children away from these technologies entirely as it does with cigarettes; rather, there is a public interest in preventing predatory targeting of minors and a countervailing interest in protecting free expression and encouraging innovation.... Haugen, a product manager until she resigned in the spring, argued that Facebook is even less transparent than tobacco companies in their heyday. For instance, outside scientists could independently invalidate claims about the safety of filtered cigarettes. By contrast, Facebook’s secret algorithms and refusal to fully cooperate with academic researchers protects the company from independent review. Haugen called for Congress to make them open up their black box...."
Recognizing the imperfection of the analogy only gets you so far. Clearly, "It’s just like cigarettes" is manifestly false. But then what? That doesn't establish that Facebook must show us its secret algorithms! Hohmann is saying that it's not like cigarettes in one way — cigarettes are physical objects that can be tested independently — so let's legislate to improve the analogy and force Facebook to reveal its secrets. He's clinging to the importance of working with the cigarette analogy. But why?!
४० टिप्पण्या:
"He's clinging to the importance of working with the cigarette analogy. But why?!"
Because victory has a thousand children, but defeat is barren. Go with the strong horse.
They both are addictive by triggering dopamine release, so the analogy is spot on.
The logical extension of the Facebook cigarette argument is to ban its sale to minors.
Why? Because cigarettes are *bad* of course, and she wants people to react the same way.
It's all an op, of course. She's been groomed and supported as a "whistleblower" (another loaded term designed to manipulate your feelings) while she was one of the people directly involved in suppressing the Hunter laptop story last year.
This is another skirmish in the war of what you and I should be allowed to see and/or say in order to make sure we hold the "correct" opinions about any and all subjects.
I suspect that Facebook/Instagram will simply stop making these kinds of studies. There's no upside to asking these questions.
The fact that the entire mainstream media is promoting this woman as a hero tells you all you need to know.
It seems obvious that if cigarettes kill and Facebook is like cigarettes, then the facile (but logically wrong) jump is "Facebook kills." Also, cigarettes are regulated by the government, so...
We should be very suspicious of the host of authoritarians who support government regulation of Facebook (and other social media).
Frances Haugen never again in her life will get a such a job as she had at Facebook.
If you owned a company, would you hire Haugen to conduct a study of your company's management practices?
She is a leaker, a publicity-hound, a back-stabber and a tendentious kook. She will take your company's money for a couple years and then try to destroy your company's reputation afterwards.
The Left also thinks Big Oil is just like Big Tobacco.
One big fucking difference: Oil and gas are perfectly safe when used as intended and are essential to modern civilization.
These libs are all fucking crazy.
They don't want to kill the goose. They want to take the golden eggs.
Howard said...
They both are addictive by triggering dopamine release, so the analogy is spot on.
Full credit to Howard on this one...
My hunch is that this entire “it’s about the kids” and “like cigarettes” is a feint. It’s the mask on their real mission, gaining control of the shunning algorithm. They know “protect the children” will attract support like the other misleading themes they use (Save the Planet and Build Back Better) to hide their anti-American and unpopular agenda (worldwide socialism and domestic oppression respectively). Haugen enthusiastically ran the mission within Facebook to shun Donald Trump and ban him from Social(ist) Media and to hype the Insurrection story and is happy to label all ideas she hates (like freedom and privacy) as “disinformation” or “misinformation” so she can BAN SPEECH. The Democrats highest priority right now is to stop all the Free Speech breaking out using their allies in Big Tech.
So most of Haugen’s testimony and all the DNC-Media coverage will be gaslighting and deception as they build momentum for “regulating Big Tech” when they are really allies working on suppressing the speech they fear, Free Speech, adherence to the Constitution, scientific facts. How else do you explain Haugen’s instant blue check “verification” by Twitter along with the algorithmic boost that put her in front of every user of social media? If she really threatened Zuck’s power we’d never know her name. It’s a trap!
Parents can keep young kids away. and they should.
ban it and tax it! lol.
"They both are addictive by triggering dopamine release, so the analogy is spot on."
Analogies are "spot on" if there is any point of comparison? We'll got straight to hell with that methodology.
This is a transparent ploy by democrats (likely working with Facebook) to have government take over 'fact checking' of social media, while at the same time creating a new federal agency which will never be shuttered.
It's more actual fascistic mission-creep by liberals to censor speech.
Democrats wish to block all dissent in this country, and Zuck wishes to be held not liable for any ill-effects of the monster he created.
All while keeping every cent of his billions and helping his preferred political party crush their opposition.
Win/win for them...
I read somewhere that Frances Haugen tried to start a protest movement when she was 8 years old. I think it's high time we as a society admit that some of these people would protest a glass of water just to protest, and are what used to be called "cranks".
Everything that triggers dopamine release will be banned in the future ...
...unless it is utilized by the government and their agents.
It's a Brave New World.
Sylvester, consider that she is working WITH Facebook instead of agin ‘em.
Clearly this Zuckerbucks stooge is signaling that Zuckerbucks wants governmental controls that would be pleasing to Democrats. Regardless of the particulars, we can assume the controls will continue to permit censorship of any opinions that might help Republicans or reflect right side thinking. Probably something like the FBI/DOJ jihad on white males of the right while permitting Antifa/BLM to go virtually unperturbed by law enforcement. Only then the censorship will have the official governmental stamp of approval. This makes sense to Zuckerbucks because he already independently identifies right wing posts to the FBI daily that the FBI dutifully investigates without question. Making the right deal now would protect Facebook from later anti-trust or polically even handed changes at the hands of Republicans. This issue coming up now also signals Zuckerbucks’ belief that the risks are high for a Republican takeover of Congress and the presidency in 2024.
The cig analogy is used because the cig companies were forced to pay lots of money to keep on operating. The cig companies LOST. So following the cig analogy is a desperate effort to repeat the history of the cig issue and make hyuge bank.
"But why?!"
To make tech do what Dems want.
I don't know about any of this because I don't smoke, and I don't use Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter. Never have; never will.
It makes life better.
She's a fraud. She wants more censorship with people at Fakebook, like her, to do the extra censoring. She is big government....it's almost like they sent her there to do this purposely. Notice how Congress and the media love her like they loved Christine Blasey Ford??? If it walks like a duck....
Why is he defending Facebook? Because James Hohmann is probably getting paid by Facebook or another Big Tech.
Either that or he thinks the current Facebook regime is doing a pretty good job censoring conservative views, so he doesn't want to upset the apple cart
Joe Smith said...
This is a transparent ploy by democrats (likely working with Facebook) to have government take over 'fact checking' of social media, while at the same time creating a new federal agency which will never be shuttered.
Could be. But there's pretty much 6 solid votes on SCOTUS for blocking gov't censorship of free speech. So getting the Feds and FB further entwined is going to bite them in the backside, hard
Simple solution -- put a Surgeon's General warning on everything!! All good now.
Mike @8:58 "...gaining control of the shunning algorithm."
Perfectly put.
We must protect the children from social media - that's the sheep's clothing.
"Why is he defending Facebook? Because James Hohmann ..."
I didn't say he's defending Facebook. It's a little complicated what he thinks he's doing. He does say (in part I didn't quote) that hard-to-comply-with regulations could advantage Facebook because it's rich and can comply, while it's a barrier to new companies.
There are no young people on Facebook. That's where parents go to share pictures of their kids.
It's a brilliant strategy by the Dems. Either they win this PR game and get official control of Facebook, or they lose, which only happens by Republicans demanding independence of FB, in which case the Dems can continue their behind the scenes control of it and the Republicans undermine their own efforts to get fair treatment on social media for their constituency.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
"But there's pretty much 6 solid votes on SCOTUS for blocking gov't censorship of free speech. So getting the Feds and FB further entwined is going to bite them in the backside, hard"
Possibly. But also possible that it would take awhile to adjudicate and in the meantime the Dems will have tilted the playing field long enough to get past the next election. Then if it's found to be unconstitutional, they just go back to controlling FB behind the scenes, and come up with new ways to cheat next time, all the while taking the wind out of any efforts by Republicans to ensure the public square is open to everyone. The leader of the Dems already has voiced his support for this kind of strategy, doing things he knows are unconstitutional but that buy time.
I was mildly surprised to learn that my BIL, a highly educated literal rocket scientist, and a deeply progressive Boulder dweller, seems to be on board with censoring conservatives. You see, it's bad that everyone gets to talk. We should go back to having gatekeepers like Dan Rather. Proving again that having a high IQ does not necessarily lead to good decisions.
And they call Republicans fascists.
"We'll got straight to hell with that methodology."
That is like going to Cleveland.
Facebook, “hooking kids” on its products and lying about its business practices, whistleblower Frances Haugen says of her former employer, is this generation’s Big Tobacco.
Hohman, more than doubled the count of words between subject from verb by a simple shuffling of phrases, could have.
I have looked at several photographs of the whistleblower. She has some of the craziest looking eyes I have ever seen.
Howard says: "They both are addictive by triggering dopamine release, so the analogy is spot on."
Althouse retorts:Analogies are "spot on" if there is any point of comparison? We'll got straight to hell with that methodology.
Reply: yes, absolutely when the analogy hits the exact center of mass on the identical mind control mechanism that causes addiction. I could go on, but I don't want to offend you with more mansplaining.
Ann Althouse said...
"Why is he defending Facebook? Because James Hohmann ..."
I didn't say he's defending Facebook. It's a little complicated what he thinks he's doing. He does say (in part I didn't quote) that hard-to-comply-with regulations could advantage Facebook because it's rich and can comply, while it's a barrier to new companies.
regulatory capture is a well known problem. but that's not the issue with FB.
Simply remove their ability to censor, and remove their ability to algorithmically decide what goes in people's FB timelines, and their power to do evil is gone.
No "algorithms to drive engagement". No deciding what to "promote" and what not to. No deciding what views are allowed, and what aren't.
They want to continue to censor nudity? That's fine. Anything else? No dice
it doesn't require heavy regulation to stop FB's evil
I'm not following the story that closely as I don't fins it very interesting, but I don't understand how Haugen qualifies as a whistleblower. There's no law-breaking alleged. Isn't she just a disgruntled former employee?
There's a Hell of a lot more to the addictive nature of cigarette smoking than just the dopamine effect.
I suspect that Facebook is the same.
Let's put the Democrats in charge of what we can and cannot hear "for the children."
We have already seen that they have no eye for "fake news" as they pushed the Russia conspiracy for two years and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop. Both 100% wrong calls based on the known facts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा