[0xParlay]

I mean FB engineers are specifically optimizing for toxicity at an algorithmic level. It’s the product. You can’t perform controlled experiments to measure the profitability of depression and also fiend ignorance.

You’re all very welcome to whatabout but working at FB is a stain on your character.

[HDThoreaun]

I mean no, they're specifically optimizing for engagement. It just turns out that toxicity fuels engagement.

[dfxm12]

Among Haugen’s allegations was a claim that the company was knowingly preying on vulnerable young people to boost profits.

"Knowingly preying on vulnerable young people to boost profits" is different from blindly optimizing for engagement without understanding what works.

[HDThoreaun]

Oh they understood how it works, and they definitely accepted that their efforts to boost engagement caused mental health issues, especially among teenage girls. But toxicity was not a goal in itself.

[zeroonetwothree]

True, although that's just an "allegation".

[0xParlay]

Non sequitor. They're optimizing for money. Contrarian status: weak.

[manuelabeledo]

Isn't that a bit like tobacco companies "optimizing for engagement", but knowing that the same ingredients cause cancer?

[tsunamifury]

In all seriousness, no, and for obvious reasons. The toxicity is created by the participants, freely and of their own volition. Is it Facebooks responsibility to police that, shut it down, censor it? Honestly... And where who and when? According to what laws in what regions. Also how do we know Facebook created it, or if it is simply making visible the toxicity that everyone knows is middle school and highschool.

I honestly don't know, but I don't like so disingenuously simple shoot the messenger answers. That being said, if Facebook amplified it willfully knowing the damage already -- then it's a different issue. And I think there is some evidence of that.

Either way its different than tobacco which was created by the company itself.

[manuelabeledo]

> Either way its different than tobacco which was created by the company itself.

One could argue that Meta willingly boosted toxic engagement themselves.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. When a controversial post or comment suddenly pops up in your feed, out of nowhere, participants may be responsible for the responses to it, but Meta is very clearly seeking, targeting, and amplifying that toxic behaviour for profit.

[tsunamifury]

Again, you don't know that. That can be the result of, show what is engaged with more, and you end up with a rage-loop, that was in no way designed purposefully into the original system.

You're on hacker news you should know these types of system design issues...

[manuelabeledo]

> That can be the result of, show what is engaged with more, and you end up with a rage-loop, that was in no way designed purposefully into the original system.

That may have been true fifteen years ago. There is now a decade worth of scientific literature on social network effects on human behaviour, and I think we can agree that this is hardly something not a single Meta executive know anything about.

> You're on hacker news you should know these types of system design issues...

What I'm suggesting is that this is not an issue for them, but a feature.