Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by glaucon 460 days ago
It's unfortunate that the article references several alleged errors that are fundamentally inconsequential (did people participate in Karaoke on a flight ? wtf ?) before it gets around to mentioning that a co-founder of Facebook endorses the book, that reference is three paragraphs from the end.

I found the article "Eight things we learned from the Facebook Papers" interesting because it exposes the technical limitations social networks face, regardless of their comms bleating on about their being technical geniuses. For example, an internal message admits, "Our ability to detect vaccine-hesitant comments is bad in English, and basically non-existent elsewhere." This was about 2020 anti-vax comments, but it likely applies to any content in less common languages, yet this issue rarely comes up in discussions about their moderation efforts.

None of this is to deny that much of what goes on in Facebook, and the like, is primarily related to money while concern for the consumers well-being is very much secondary. It seems to me, that whatever the shortcomings of specific parts of 'Careless People' it's broad message is well worth spreading.

1 comments

> it likely applies to any content in less common languages, yet this issue rarely comes up in discussions about their moderation efforts

It comes up constantly, just not by politicians and lobbyists with ulterior motives. It's certainly a huge reason they're investing in LLMs too. Politicians typically don't care about the reality and limitations of the policy they propose, and view moderation either as censorship or a jobs program.

This is also a widely understood concept, especially today with the rise of TikTok. There is an entirely new vernacular of English forming in response to automated moderation efforts (eg. "un-alive" vs "killed"/"suicide"). Internet users generally understand and are capable of learning to evade moderation by changing language usage. This is also popular in high-moderation environments like China too, where there are plenty of subtle euphemisms.

This was also one of the core issues in the "genocide caused by Facebook" in Myanmar. It was reported that during the relevant time periods, Facebook often had between 0 and 1 full time employees capable of understanding the local language and customs, but didn't want to invest in hiring moderators with knowledge of the language.

> It comes up constantly, just not by politicians and lobbyists with ulterior motives.

Thanks for your useful comments, I hadn't heard much discussion of the issue but I'm pleased someone is talking about it.

Wrt LLMs filling the gap, given non-techs rather wide-eyed view of what they can, or will, do, I'm concerned that the discourse will become one of "don't worry we've got ai on the job".

> I'm concerned that the discourse will become one of "don't worry we've got ai on the job".

There is more to the LLM research going on besides chat bots like ChatGPT. Lots of much more advanced sentiment analysis, translations, etc. Definitely not saying it's perfect, but it's better than nothing. Again with the Facebook/Myanmar example, there were posts at the time that were practically "help us kill X minority group" in the native language and Facebook was powerless without automated at-scale translation and sentiment analysis. Anything is (usually?) an improvement over nothing.

Like leet speak?