Facebook - Youth Protection

[RememberSchiff]

Oct 4, 2021 Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen Congressional testimony

A critical starting point for effective regulation is transparency: full access to data for research not directed by Facebook...But Facebook’s closed design means it has no oversight — even from its own Oversight Board...This must change.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E-4914-BEDB-3A7B1190BD49

As for Facebook YP. I found no statement that Facebook is fully responsible for its content unlike the FCC requirement for radio and television station licenses.

https://www.facebook.com/safety/onlinechildprotection

Hmmm.

[HelpfulTracks]

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

As for Facebook YP. I found no statement that Facebook is fully responsible for its content unlike the FCC requirement for radio and television station licenses.

https://www.facebook.com/safety/onlinechildprotection

Hmmm.

From my understanding, Section 230 gives the liability protection as they are specifically defined as not being an editorial organization. So I am not surprised they have no statement about content responsibility. 

I think 230 was initially designed for ISP's and companies that literally, just hosted content (and really only provided the server software/hardware to host). I am not sure if it was general "scope creep" of that definition if there were legislative changes, but once the content started becoming the product it became a slippery slope. 

So now that Facebook, Twitter etc.  are making editorial decisions beyond what is explicit material, they a stepping into quicksand and well may loose those protections. I just hope congress does not make a knee jerk reaction that also effects ISPs or we will have  a REAL mess. 

As for Haugen's  testimony and algorithms.

The "it's our algorithms" excuse has always been laughable. Algorithms do not exist in a vacuum, they are designed and tested and retested to push towards results with a specified criteria. They are not some living thing that grows on its own, at least not yet (SkyNet). 

And there is no way Facebook lets anyone look into that black box, the algorithms are like Cokes Secret recipe, only more so. They are what makes them Google, at least on the search side. If they were opened up for review, there is a great likelihood that not soon after we would have dozens of search engines as effective as Google and their stock would plummet. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by HelpfulTracks
typo, but I am sure I still missed some, I always do

[RememberSchiff]

24 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

... we would have dozens of search engines as effective as Google .... 

I miss the old Google search engine or even the old Alta Vista search engine when they were end-user effective, i.e., I could find stuff.

Oh some transparency to mention, Antigone Davis is the Director, Global Head of Safety at Facebook but as Ms. Haugen's stated , "the buck stops with Zuckerberg"

 

[HelpfulTracks]

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

I miss the old Google search engine or even the old Alta Vista search engine when they were end-user effective, i.e., I could find stuff.

Oh some transparency to mention, Antigone Davis is the Director, Global Head of Safety at Facebook but as Ms. Haugen's stated , "the buck stops with Zuckerberg"

 

Ahhh, oldies but goodies. 

I liked it back in the day when you could bounce between platforms like Altavista, Webcrawler,  Lycos and Ask Jeeves. You could search the same term and get different results, ranked in different ways. Now there is Google and everyone trying to duplicate Google.

If you really want to go back to the stone age, Archie, Jughead and Veronica (Gopher) were fun too. Yes, those were search tools (pre WWW), not just comic book characters. 

[MattR]

It reminds me of many other similar conflicts that organizations have. Developing software and testing software require different mindsets. One can do both but the changeover from one to the other is not easy. There needs to be respect for both sides. When one gets cheated (and it's always the one furthest from sales) it harms the product. Toyota has quality above features and they charge a premium for that. 

It would be great if the bsa understood this concept. It might be painful at first but they'd be in a much stronger position if quality had more people's attention. YP or program, it should all be important. 

[HelpfulTracks]

1 minute ago, MattR said:

It would be great if the bsa understood this concept. It might be painful at first but they'd be in a much stronger position if quality had more people's attention. YP or program, it should all be important. 

Yes, I am torn. I would love to see some six sigma applied to BSA. But I also fear that being so wonky it would push us further from the outdoors and Scout skills. 

 

3 minutes ago, MattR said:

It reminds me of many other similar conflicts that organizations have. Developing software and testing software require different mindsets. One can do both but the changeover from one to the other is not easy. There needs to be respect for both sides. When one gets cheated (and it's always the one furthest from sales) it harms the product. Toyota has quality above features and they charge a premium for that. 

That has been one benefit from my journey from the software side to the data side. "Get it right" is far more important than "get it out the door"

[RememberSchiff]

I predict some real world YP will be applied to the virtual world. For example, user registration, background checks,  content moderating, pushing end-user responsibility....

My $0.02,

[MattR]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Yes, I am torn. I would love to see some six sigma applied to BSA. But I also fear that being so wonky it would push us further from the outdoors and Scout skills. 

I'm not talking about using quality tools. I'm talking about having a group of people whose focus is program quality and they have a respected position at the table - someone that will push patrol method and be respected, for example. 

[HelpfulTracks]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

I'm not talking about using quality tools. I'm talking about having a group of people whose focus is program quality and they have a respected position at the table - someone that will push patrol method and be respected, for example. 

Thus my "fear that being so wonky it would push us further from the outdoors and Scout skills." 

On the administrative and business side of the organization I certainly think we could use a good inward looking quality improvement intuitive. And if done correctly, I would think it would re-center the program side back toward the things that made it so great, like patrol method and scouting skills. 

My fear would be that it would be outward looking and the path would be towards doing things like other groups rather than embracing what the heart of this program used to be.