Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/opinion/sunday/facebook-immoral.html
75 comments
Yes, we do need to stop paying taxes. The only problem is they put you in prison if you stop. We are slaves.
[Note: I have a hatred toward Facebook the company and what it has done with its products and strategy.]
We have a moral duty to not do or support so many things, but we still do because of other people, social conditioning, believing that there's no better way, etc. Making binary decisions in life is not easy most of the time.
On Facebook, my belief is that people ought to quit it on moral grounds, but there are no comprehensive equivalents to its features on facebook.com for them to move to. There are plenty of alternatives for WhatsApp and FB Messenger that are far, far better than those. Instagram could also be replaced with some adjustment. But the Facebook timeline, news feed, groups, pages, events, etc., are not easy to replace with a single alternative.
I can't wait for the day when quitting becomes easy because alternatives are far better and easier to use.
We have a moral duty to not do or support so many things, but we still do because of other people, social conditioning, believing that there's no better way, etc. Making binary decisions in life is not easy most of the time.
On Facebook, my belief is that people ought to quit it on moral grounds, but there are no comprehensive equivalents to its features on facebook.com for them to move to. There are plenty of alternatives for WhatsApp and FB Messenger that are far, far better than those. Instagram could also be replaced with some adjustment. But the Facebook timeline, news feed, groups, pages, events, etc., are not easy to replace with a single alternative.
I can't wait for the day when quitting becomes easy because alternatives are far better and easier to use.
The Times seems to be on an anti-Facebook crusade of sorts.
Which is fine with me, but morality is usually the weakest & least important argument for doing anything. That's why so many people - the clergy - have to make a full-time career out of declaring it to be the most important.
Quitting Facebook benefits you, selfishly and immediately; end of story.
Quitting Facebook benefits you, selfishly and immediately; end of story.
Ugh! This is getting tiresome. Yes, NY Times hates Facebook. I get it. Can we please stop posting story after story about that here?
I left FB in 2013 because of duty to myself. If anything you should stay on FB because of duty to others. FB made it clear that they are not able to control what happens on the platform, so it's on users.
I would not like the idea of FB to fail (connect the world) but would like its current business model to fail (selling private information to highest bidder).
I would not like the idea of FB to fail (connect the world) but would like its current business model to fail (selling private information to highest bidder).
> I would not like the idea of FB to fail (connect the world) but would like its current business model to fail (selling private information to highest bidder).
They don't. This is completely against their business model (which is - from the perspective of the target, aka you and me - the same business model google has). They don't sell your information, they want all your information to sell advertisers the ability to target and tailor their ads to you (and convince advertisers to give them more data so they can target more efficiently).
I don't understand why and how this trope keeps getting repeated, particularly among tech people.
Just the fact they are collecting the data is bad (and incentivizing other business to throw their data in their databases), there is no reason for spewing FUD about what their business model is, or even touching how good/bad they are (or were years ago) at preventing that data from leaving their servers.
They don't. This is completely against their business model (which is - from the perspective of the target, aka you and me - the same business model google has). They don't sell your information, they want all your information to sell advertisers the ability to target and tailor their ads to you (and convince advertisers to give them more data so they can target more efficiently).
I don't understand why and how this trope keeps getting repeated, particularly among tech people.
Just the fact they are collecting the data is bad (and incentivizing other business to throw their data in their databases), there is no reason for spewing FUD about what their business model is, or even touching how good/bad they are (or were years ago) at preventing that data from leaving their servers.
They sell targeted screen space seems more accurate.
[deleted]
No. You can do whatever you want. Look twice, and then once more hard at anyone that tells you have a moral duty to do anything.
You pretty obviously can’t do whatever you want. From a legal perspective you’ll be arrested and prosecuted if you commit a crime. From a philosophical perspective you have a moral duty to do good, by virtue of the intrinsic definition of good (whatever that may be in your ethical framework). Even if your ethical system says you should only do what makes you happy, you still have a duty to fulfill that goal as it is internally equivalent to the concept of good.
> Look twice, and then once at anyone that tells you have a moral duty to do anything.
You are free to do whatever however moral duty does exist.
You are free to do whatever however moral duty does exist.
Being in tech means never having to say you're sorry (because you can freely switch between being a libertarian to shirk responsibility or a collectivist to shirk responsibility)
This would be an interesting topic for an episode of "the Good Place".
[deleted]
I'm not going to tell anyone else what they should do, but I am unwilling to use or associate with any of their services or properties.
Could you explain why?
The article explains why.
Facebook is a genuinely evil company with genuinely evil people doing genuinely evil things to manipulate the world in negative ways, and I want nothing to do with them. They've been immoral/unethical from the start.
They manipulate their users, cause genuine harm to people, the world, and democracy, and should not be rewarded with continued use of their services.
Edit: Because people have been downvoting/flagging my comments, I'm no longer allowed to reply to people and continue the discussion.
Facebook is a genuinely evil company with genuinely evil people doing genuinely evil things to manipulate the world in negative ways, and I want nothing to do with them. They've been immoral/unethical from the start.
They manipulate their users, cause genuine harm to people, the world, and democracy, and should not be rewarded with continued use of their services.
Edit: Because people have been downvoting/flagging my comments, I'm no longer allowed to reply to people and continue the discussion.
> They've been immoral/unethical from the start.
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about the current outrage at Facebook. IMHO they are far ethically better today than they were say 6-10 years ago. I just don't understand the outrage today if its ok to do what they did several years ago. I mean, I left Facebook in 2011 due to their ethical issues.
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about the current outrage at Facebook. IMHO they are far ethically better today than they were say 6-10 years ago. I just don't understand the outrage today if its ok to do what they did several years ago. I mean, I left Facebook in 2011 due to their ethical issues.
I’m not sure that I read the same article.
“For me at least, Facebook would have crossed a moral red line if it had, for example, intentionally sold the data of its users to Cambridge Analytica with the full knowledge that company would use the data subversively to influence a democratic election. Likewise, Facebook would have crossed a red line if it had intentionally assisted in the dissemination of hate speech in Myanmar. But the evidence indicates that Facebook did not intend for those things to occur on its platform.”
“For me at least, Facebook would have crossed a moral red line if it had, for example, intentionally sold the data of its users to Cambridge Analytica with the full knowledge that company would use the data subversively to influence a democratic election. Likewise, Facebook would have crossed a red line if it had intentionally assisted in the dissemination of hate speech in Myanmar. But the evidence indicates that Facebook did not intend for those things to occur on its platform.”
I think Facebook is fine for the demographic its designers are/were (educated middle class and above elite). All of its problems seem to me to result from extending its service to the frankly deranged masses of humanity and not fencing them in enough.
Those are some mighty incredible claims. Care to defend them with proof?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46302140
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
Some of these are direct actions by the company. Some are unintended consequences. And this isn't even getting into the personal harm and unhealthy behavior that comes from use of Facebook and similar manipulative social media.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
Some of these are direct actions by the company. Some are unintended consequences. And this isn't even getting into the personal harm and unhealthy behavior that comes from use of Facebook and similar manipulative social media.
choot(3)
I couldn't read the article because it has a paywall but I left facebook because it was ridiculous, not moral duty
If you open the link in an incognito window, it should work.
I will try that thanks!
There seem to be at least one post every day on Hacker News that’s negative about Facebook. Does anyone here know why?
It’s because every day, someone submits a negative post and every day, people upvote them.
Likely, competitors, hostile investors, and/or NGOs are funding negative coverage through PR firms, just like Facebook itself recently did. (It happens more than you'd think.)
There's also a pile-on effect once a topic gets enough traction, and multiple outlets start publishing hit pieces in the hopes of gaining a few extra eyeballs.
Finally, government investigations into companies tend to create negative buzz, and since that's been happening with FB, that's probably generating some additional interest.
See also: Tesla.
There's also a pile-on effect once a topic gets enough traction, and multiple outlets start publishing hit pieces in the hopes of gaining a few extra eyeballs.
Finally, government investigations into companies tend to create negative buzz, and since that's been happening with FB, that's probably generating some additional interest.
See also: Tesla.
Because Facebook is a horrible company and an increasing amount of information about just how bad they really are is coming to light lately.
Well first and foremost, there has always been primal hostility on HN and similar boards toward advertising, and anything with privacy concerns.
Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat.
Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".
Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat.
Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".
Hmm, I'm not sure they're just a scapegoat.
I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor.
Especially when it seems like, half the time, people don't even read the articles and just get outraged by the headline which they assume to be true.
And the whole, people being in bubbles with their own viewpoint cannot be a positive.
I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor.
Especially when it seems like, half the time, people don't even read the articles and just get outraged by the headline which they assume to be true.
And the whole, people being in bubbles with their own viewpoint cannot be a positive.
> I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor.
Be careful - AIs may be wrong and manipulated and with authors with agendas, and newspaper editors can be wrong and manipulated and have agendas. There are countless example of newspapers being wrong and creating a narrative in the past (ex: look at "manufacturing consent" book) to either support the government or cover their (or the government) mistakes, or just plainly hide facts. And with media concentration, this is just going to get worse and worse :)
Or look at what the reaction by the NYT (or WaPo, or media in general) was to the massive social media presence and access of the Obama campaign [1] compared to what their reaction were after Trump won and they needed a scapegoat to somewhat make sense of it even after some voices called (on TV) for a moment of reflection about the dangers of them "being cheerleaders" [2].
Always remember "engagement" is a metric very important for newspapers too - their business model is selling ads, exactly like facebook does!
[1] https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8
Be careful - AIs may be wrong and manipulated and with authors with agendas, and newspaper editors can be wrong and manipulated and have agendas. There are countless example of newspapers being wrong and creating a narrative in the past (ex: look at "manufacturing consent" book) to either support the government or cover their (or the government) mistakes, or just plainly hide facts. And with media concentration, this is just going to get worse and worse :)
Or look at what the reaction by the NYT (or WaPo, or media in general) was to the massive social media presence and access of the Obama campaign [1] compared to what their reaction were after Trump won and they needed a scapegoat to somewhat make sense of it even after some voices called (on TV) for a moment of reflection about the dangers of them "being cheerleaders" [2].
Always remember "engagement" is a metric very important for newspapers too - their business model is selling ads, exactly like facebook does!
[1] https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8
I'm starting to suspect the media is extorting Facebook. "Give us better rates at ads, or we'll be badmouthing you for months".
It would be interesting to know how much money the NYT spends on Facebook ads, and how many visits (and as such profit) they receive from there.
I doubt they report that in their quarterly calls with shareholders though.
I doubt they report that in their quarterly calls with shareholders though.
Short sellers.
It used to be Uber last year, but now it's Facebook. The journalists have a new target now. They won't stop until Zuckerberg kisses their ring and acknowledges their power. In 2019 it will be someone else, maybe Jeff Bezos but with a more emboldened approach.
We have no more moral duty in leaving Facebook than we do in disabling our ad blockers.
Well.. I don't know about your ad-blocker, but mine does not play any role in genocide. Unlike FB in Myanmar.
Ad blockers are theft.
My refusal to read or view content that has been provided to me is an exercising of my right to consent.
Those providing the content are free to revoke their consent as well, and many do when ads fail to render.
It is not theft to refuse to consent.
Those providing the content are free to revoke their consent as well, and many do when ads fail to render.
It is not theft to refuse to consent.
By the way I think it's possible to leave facebook while keeping messenger. At this point, I feel like most of the people I know who are on fb use it or messenger rather than anything else.
I don't understand this disconnect. Messenger = Facebook.
If you are deciding to "leave Facebook" as protest to the fact that:
Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world
then that means you need to leave Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp, tbh, Facebook (product), Oculus and every other Facebook owned property.
I don't see how people aren't making this connection.
If you are deciding to "leave Facebook" as protest to the fact that:
Facebook has played a significant role in undermining democratic values around the world
then that means you need to leave Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp, tbh, Facebook (product), Oculus and every other Facebook owned property.
I don't see how people aren't making this connection.
You misunderstand. I understand that they are kind of the same thing, however when people leave fb proper, they are more likely to leave it altogether later.
Is your point that you need to wean people off of Facebook owned properties? Because that wasn't what the post seemed to say.
If you want to leave FB on moral principals, then dropping all of their products is the only thing that would be impactful. Otherwise you're just shifting where you give them revenue.
If you want to leave FB on moral principals, then dropping all of their products is the only thing that would be impactful. Otherwise you're just shifting where you give them revenue.
I prefer to encourage people and celebrate progress. Messenger gathers less info on you I believe but I might be wrong.
I've been encouraging friends to use SMS instead.
FB messenger is probably more secure than SMS, especially if you use secret conversations (although you lose portability of conversations this way).
Signal and iMessage are my favorites personally.
Signal and iMessage are my favorites personally.
My security conscious friends already use encrypted channels of communication. It's the ad-adverse and creepy-suggestions-wary that benefit from switching to SMS.
SMS doesn't require an app that requests invasive access to information.
SMS doesn't require an app that requests invasive access to information.
SMS gives the involved operator(s) access to the content. Depending where you are, those may be pretty creepy themselves.
Sure, and depending on where you are there may be strong regulation on what they can do with that data.
It's unfortunate that SMS is generally pretty terrible and has very poor coverage in many areas these days. I get unreliable delivery, out of order delivery, weird redeliveries
I somehow managed to get my _entire_ friend circle and family on Signal. I feel like I should get some kind of bronze life achievement unlock :D.
Ha, I tried and failed to do so. The nice thing about SMS is that it doesn't require an app, or even a smart phone.
It is! That’s exactly what I’ve done. Who knows if this will continue indefinitely though.
Are you really leaving Facebook at that point though? They're still collecting every bit of text you send to serve you ads and sell your data. If your friends will only message you on FB messenger, are they really that great of friends?
I think messages aren't mined for advertising at this point.
Doesn't mean that won't change, but their current policy states it isn't happening now.
Secret messages can't be harvested, but aren't portable between devices.
Doesn't mean that won't change, but their current policy states it isn't happening now.
Secret messages can't be harvested, but aren't portable between devices.
The article concludes that it is acceptable to stay on Facebook, but I take issue with its approach.
Underlying the logic is a premise: that because Facebook is used by some to spread propaganda and promote hate, it is (at least in part) to blame for the illiberal trajectory of some Western democracies. For many, it is more simplistic: there is a belief that Facebook is to blame for our election outcome. Of course, it is extremely difficult to know how much "to blame" Facebook as opposed to traditional media, and conclusive facts will be impossible to obtain. Both lines of reasoning, it should be noted, neglect the possibility that the election was determined by the will of people under a non-democratic system via the electoral college.
To me, the question is whether or not Facebook is a unique actor in this capacity. Does Facebook do something substantially different from other social media platforms or content providers that particularly undermines democratic values? I don't believe it does: Twitter spreads conspiracy theories, Snapchat is used for bullying and harassment, Google has comparable troves of data for sale to advertisers. While it has certainly had some public relations snafus, on the whole, as a platform it isn't that unique.
Underlying the logic is a premise: that because Facebook is used by some to spread propaganda and promote hate, it is (at least in part) to blame for the illiberal trajectory of some Western democracies. For many, it is more simplistic: there is a belief that Facebook is to blame for our election outcome. Of course, it is extremely difficult to know how much "to blame" Facebook as opposed to traditional media, and conclusive facts will be impossible to obtain. Both lines of reasoning, it should be noted, neglect the possibility that the election was determined by the will of people under a non-democratic system via the electoral college.
To me, the question is whether or not Facebook is a unique actor in this capacity. Does Facebook do something substantially different from other social media platforms or content providers that particularly undermines democratic values? I don't believe it does: Twitter spreads conspiracy theories, Snapchat is used for bullying and harassment, Google has comparable troves of data for sale to advertisers. While it has certainly had some public relations snafus, on the whole, as a platform it isn't that unique.
When will New York Times point their Eye of Sauron against the things that you enjoy? They have no business spreading their version of "morality" lest it become a slippery slope into a new religion.
Facebook is an ad company. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. And even if they target you with ads, who cares? After decades of people saying "I don't notice the ads on web sites" all of a sudden web ads have the ability to take down countries? Don't dress it up as a "moral" issue, and plus, whose morality is the one judging this?
If you pick at every single company, you can find things that give you a "moral duty" to leave. How far will they go? Love video games? It encourages violence and gambling, you have a moral duty to leave. Do you have moral duty to not use Amazon anymore because they don't treat their workers the way the NYT wants them to be treated? Love muscle cars? It kills the environment with pollution, you have a moral duty to leave. Love cooking? Why aren't you feeding the homeless instead, you have a moral duty to do that instead of wasting money on fancy food.
Facebook is an ad company. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. And even if they target you with ads, who cares? After decades of people saying "I don't notice the ads on web sites" all of a sudden web ads have the ability to take down countries? Don't dress it up as a "moral" issue, and plus, whose morality is the one judging this?
If you pick at every single company, you can find things that give you a "moral duty" to leave. How far will they go? Love video games? It encourages violence and gambling, you have a moral duty to leave. Do you have moral duty to not use Amazon anymore because they don't treat their workers the way the NYT wants them to be treated? Love muscle cars? It kills the environment with pollution, you have a moral duty to leave. Love cooking? Why aren't you feeding the homeless instead, you have a moral duty to do that instead of wasting money on fancy food.
How do you square this view with your public statement about having lost your respect for Yegge when he joined Grab? Weren't you doing the same thing as the NYT is doing here - voicing your opinion on what companies one should avoid for ethical reasons?
Nope, your analogy is deeply flawed.
I'm not telling people that they have a moral obligation to do or think anything. I gave my opinion that I lost respect in Steve Yegge, because he was being a hypocrite. I didn't say "People should no longer respect Steve Yegge because he's a hypocrite". There's a profound difference between the two.
I'm not telling people that they have a moral obligation to do or think anything. I gave my opinion that I lost respect in Steve Yegge, because he was being a hypocrite. I didn't say "People should no longer respect Steve Yegge because he's a hypocrite". There's a profound difference between the two.
[deleted]
You essentially said Steve Yegge had a moral obligation not to be an hypocrite, and therefore to not join Grab the way he did.
You have a moral obligation not to misrepresent what I write.
It's my honest interpretation. I don't see how they are not equivalent. Maybe you could help me.
We live in a world where it is very difficult to limit our personal commerce to avoid indirect support for activities and people we may find repugnant. I am reminded of the Biblical parable of 'Render Unto Caesar'. While I applaud those who stand on principle, I do not condemn those (most of us) who find it necessary to separate personal from political.