Slashdot Mirror
Former Reddit CEO Decries 'Rage-Induced Interactions' on Facebook and Twitter (wired.com)
Were the creators of Facebook and Twitter oblivious to how social networks could be abused? "I struggle to believe that these brilliant product CEOs, who have created social media services used by millions of people worldwide, are actually naive," writes Ellen Pao, the former CEO of Reddit. "It's a lot more likely that they simply don't care."
[S]ocial media companies and the leaders who run them are rewarded for focusing on reach and engagement, not for positive impact or for protecting subsets of users from harm. They're rewarded for keeping costs down, which encourages the free-for-all, anything-goes approach misnomered "free speech." If they don't need to monitor their platforms, they don't need to come up with real policies -- and avoid paying for all the people and tools required to implement them....
In the earliest days, it wasn't always obvious what these platforms were doing and what they would become -- even to insiders. But at a certain point, it became clear that money was the driving factor, and dopamine- or rage-induced interactions meant more money.... CEOs should just forget about hiding behind "naivete" and "free speech," and instead remind themselves they can take actions that will meaningfully change the direction of the future. The first step is acknowledging the problem... You've solved for increasing engagement; now it's time to make real, positive interactions a priority.
The next time a CEO claims ignorance, "we must hold them accountable," the essay argues, complaining that right now there's a vacuum of leadership.
So instead, "Everyone's holding hands on the road to hell."
In the earliest days, it wasn't always obvious what these platforms were doing and what they would become -- even to insiders. But at a certain point, it became clear that money was the driving factor, and dopamine- or rage-induced interactions meant more money.... CEOs should just forget about hiding behind "naivete" and "free speech," and instead remind themselves they can take actions that will meaningfully change the direction of the future. The first step is acknowledging the problem... You've solved for increasing engagement; now it's time to make real, positive interactions a priority.
The next time a CEO claims ignorance, "we must hold them accountable," the essay argues, complaining that right now there's a vacuum of leadership.
So instead, "Everyone's holding hands on the road to hell."
Failing to mention that the author is Ellen Pao and just saying "former CEO of Reddit"
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
I'm guessing chairman Pao would be much happier with the Chinese model. They do after all censor all the social media for "positive impact" and "protecting a small subset of users".
It must be difficult to be so smart that you feel a responsibility of governing the lives of every human being on the planet.
For example shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
You might want to read the history of this analogy. It was first used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. His reasoning was that obviously the government had the power to arrest someone for shouting fire in a theater, so, hey, it was also okay for the government to arrest people for speaking out against the WW1 draft. Totally the same thing.
So the defendants went to prison, where they were beaten and abused. Some of them died there.
So using stupid analogies to justify political censorship has a long history.
Later in his life, Oliver Wendell Holmes said this ruling was one of his biggest regrets.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater
Schenck v. United States
The problem with social media, and all internet discussion, is people like you who can't stay on topic and want to turn everything into a discussion about politics. Rather than being about social media, your post is about college costs, medical costs and Nancy Pelosi. You try to loosely associate it with the topic with the first and last sentence, but really it's just an off-topic rant. Then some people who agree with your opinion come and upvote your post, making it the most prominent on the page, so the discussion becomes completely derailed.
People like you ruin internet discussion for others. When every topic turns into a discussion about politics, people simply give up and stop participating.
You are the problem. Please stop.