Hacker News Reader

Comment by easrng | Hacker News Reader

It seems like people are mostly reacting to the title. This is what they are asking for:

  > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.
  > 
  > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.
  > 
  > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.
  > 
  > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

Only #3 seems like it would be remotely controversial to anyone but adtech vendors and services trying to maximize "engagement".

View on HN

That Mozilla used such a title is by itself an enormous redflag, no matter how "milder" the message is in the article itself. As an example, if Amnesty came up with an article titled "We need more than just incarceration" the title itself would be so antithetical to their core message that no matter how much more nuanced the article is, you'd still be able to realize that something went very wrong inside the organization and that they clearly steered completely off their core values.

The point is if Mozilla can't come out against internet censorship, they should at least not even touch this subject with a ten feet pole.

Like what are they gaining here, what does this have to do with their purpose as an organization? It still doesn't make sense even if we assume that they shouldn't just stick to making a better browser alternative.

The ritual attacks on named individuals who have not (in this context) been formally charged with anything is disgusting and Orwellian.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation

Technology companies shouldn't be deciding what the facts are or aren't.

But they are deciding already. They can't show you everything, so they pick and choose for you based on your behavior profile. Maybe that's not deciding what truth is, but they definitely know what not to show to keep people clicking.

I can't argue with that. I guess they used to be more subtle about it though.

Number three is crucial for disinformation campaigns. Social platforms maximize interactivity, not transparency or honesty. The disinformation echo chambers have done great harm to society's mental health.

Kids (and adults!) need to be taught that just because you read it doesn't mean it's true. Individuals have done great harm to their own mental health, and it's their responsibility to look after their own mental health.

I agree with most of those (except #3), but it's presented in such a partisan way that it feels like nails on a chalkboard. Some of these actions (especially #4 and #2) also have much clearer and non-controversial justifications like the rohingya genocide.

Do you think that targeting advertisers can be executed with zero bias? Or what about "independent researchers"....can they decide things with no bias?

Ads should be targeted based on the content they are served with, not by profiling users.

Weed legalization ads should have been only targeted at people who searched for weed?

Or, ads can be untargeted, which also does not need profiling.

because the post was critical of Trump (who’d never do the things listed in that post!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com