Tim Cook Implies That Facebook's Business Model of Maximizing Engagement Leads to Polarization and Violence

[edk99]

Yet Facebook remains in the App Store and Parler is still gone. Even though we now know that most of the planning was done on Facebook and Twitter.

Apple is right on privacy but we all know their reasons for doing this is Bottom line and nothing to do with its Users. Removing Facebook would hurt its bottom line as people would move to Android to get Facebook back. Apple is as greedy and manipulative as ever.

I removed the FB app a few years ago and just use it through Safari on my phone. Problem solved.

 

[FNH15]

I'm glad they do, too, but the cynic in me thinks they only did it because iAd failed so abysmally. If they were raking in money from ads like everyone else I suspect we would have a very different Apple on our hands.

The downfall of the walled garden: Here's why iAd failed | TechCrunch

Apple is the world’s most valuable company -- no other company even comes close. That shouldn’t be surprising, as the Silicon Valley-based company has created an unparalleled hardware culture that more resembles a lifestyle than a brand. Apple is potentially worth more than a trillion dollars...

techcrunch.com

Take a look @ the last point - iAds failed because Apple wouldn’t share data.

 

[ouimetnick]

"At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible," said Cook. "It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn't come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence," he added.

SHOT FIRED. Just read the transcript, and I thought it was very well thought out. There's a movie I suggest watching called The Social Dilemma. These algorithms are designed to keep the user engaged with the platform to sell the user more ads. Even unhealthy or toxic engagement is needed to keep the money flowing into Zucc and Sandbird's bank account.

 

[Klyster]

Go on Tim, kick it off your platform, they break the rules, inciting violence and such.
Oh that's right, you can't do that, you'll lose users in droves.

 

[yaxomoxay]

He's not wrong. It's also why American democracy has become so destructive around the world. When you want to represent the so-called popular interests of one nation in a republic, you'll see what happens to so many regions in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. The problem though is probably more about America and Americans than social media.

From the genocide of indigenous peoples to slavery and the civil war, and Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Bolivia...

America and Americans have been like this long before FB. Giant corporations, including Apple and FB, have always been part of it--often to extract resources or maintain political interest. Cook was cozying up to Trump and barely ever standing against him, but he takes a hard stance against FB.

FB's awful, no doubt, but they're not the problem

I don't necessarily disagree with the above, but I'd like to take Afghanistan off the (good) list above. Afghanistan was the result of a direct hit on US soil (9/11). We can discuss and analyze forever how it was handled, but it does not belong with the other countries mentioned above.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

It's great to see some big money taking a public stance on the issue of privacy.

It's also great that there is a profit incentive behind this push. By making it a selling point this will make it more certain Apple will continue with this direction.

 

[LeeW]

FB really is digital cancer. When I did use it I just couldn't believe how many people would believe what was posted there, so bad.

 

[dannyyankou]

Gloves are coming off

 

[LeadingHeat]

He’s got a point. But I think the problem extends beyond Facebook and is inherent with the internet in the first place.

Simply; there is no police or law. It’s uncontrollable, like a virus without a cure.

The internet has undeniable merits, but I think many would agree that they were more content with life before social media had an influence on the way we lived.

Careful, that’s how you get communism. Look at China’s internet “policing”.

I do, though, agree with you on that last paragraph. Social life before social media was much healthier. And actually social. Nowadays people can’t go 30 seconds in a line without pulling out their phone. Instead of talking to the people around them.

 

[ian87w]

 

[yaxomoxay]

SHOT FIRED. Just read the transcript, and I thought it was very well thought out. There's a movie I suggest watching called The Social Dilemma. These algorithms are designed to keep the user engaged with the platform to sell the user more ads. Even unhealthy or toxic engagement is needed to keep the money flowing into Zucc and Sandbird's bank account.

Good documentary, but for the love of God the proposed solution (=laws, laws, laws) is as bad as the problem.

 

[yaxomoxay]

FB really is digital cancer. When I did use it I just couldn't believe how many people would believe what was posted there, so bad.

You're right. I found out recently that FB can even be worse than Twitter.
Since it's on topic, this is what I wrote last Friday on the "What's on your mind" thread:

My news diet experiment is ongoing. Some findings so far... some surprising.

What I did:

• I basically stopped watching and reading all news a few weeks ago, gradually.
• I removed ALL political accounts from my IG, Twitter feed, and Facebook.
• I removed reddit.
• I removed the few youtube subscriptions to news.
• I removed all the subscriptions to political podcasts.
• I cleaned up the gmail account I use for newsletter. All of them (except one) go in the trash now before I even see them.

What I found so far:

• I do NOT miss watching/reading the news. I mean, not at all. My mind seems way clearer.
• It seems that so far I am still able to "receive" important news. I heard, through word of mouth or a random comment on social media, about some major events, or some executive orders.
• It seems that I am mostly out of irrelevant stuff; I just do not have any clue about this or that gossip, although something still arrives to me.
• To my huge surprise, not only twitter is bearable, but I actually like it. I have motivational follows, I have fitness follows, I have bookish follows, and a few friends in there. I am using it to motivate myself, and it's working. To my double surprise, so far I haven't seen a single political post, or a single controversial post on it since I started the test. (by controversy I mean something serious, I don't mean "Do you like director X?") I also noticed that the little non-political controversies on Twitter are not really as "violent" as the political ones.
• Instagram can be a double edged sword. I have mostly fitness related follows... and a few IG-models I noticed that some controversy might happen on there, and I noticed that somehow political posts will appear. I also noticed that it's inevitable, but it's also very very contained to big events and just a few accounts for one or two days (e.g. after the presidential inauguration people, groups, heck even IG-models posted something political).
• Instagram also makes me aware of some minor event via meme. I started observing many memes on Senator Sanders, and it took me two or three posts to understand what it was (many are incredibly hilarious) even if I haven't seen a single video, and even if I haven't seen the actual picture. Comments on IG can be really nasty, but mostly are good.
• Some friends are way too political even on IG and I muted them.
• Facebook is the worst. I did not expect this, but it's all about politics. After removing all the political follows, and all the news channels, and even many groups I used to follow, politics is there. Always. Every two posts there is politics + controversy. Many of the so called Friends talk about politics, even the unsuspecting ones, and they usually do it a-la PRSI style (@Scepticalscribe my comment on the Feedback forum comes from this observation).
• It seems to me that most of the controversies on IG and FB come from a small % of accounts (more on FB than IG), while Twitter is the opposite: most of the good stuff comes from a small % of accounts.

So far, very interesting experiment. I'll let you know!

(this post is 100% apolitical)

 

[swingerofbirch]

I was in an international relations/government department at college during the Arab Spring, and the overwhelming sentiment was one of hope and that social media was helping with toppling dictators/bad governments. (That turned out to be a disaster for the most part.)

My point is that by and large these are platforms that could be used for anything. Something as random as sending Gamestop's valuation through the roof.

And at one point were being heralded as helping bring democracy to the Middle East.

Humans are still free agents, and there were people who wanted to do what they did at the Capitol who *used* things like Facebook and other platforms as tools. To suggest that they were manipulated by algorithms into being idiots . . . well I think they got there on their own.

And Tim Cook himself *normalized* Donald Trump over the last four years.

This quote from him seems so hypocritical:

"we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement"

He has continually said you need a seat at the table even with people you disagree with, and he humored and placated and yes, engaged with, Donald Trump for four years.

 

[rillrill]

This crisis MUST be dealt with now. The crazy conspiracies online are out of control and unchecked. If big tech doesn’t change it now, the government has to change it.

 

[macduke]

You know it's serious when Tim wears a suit.

Facebook is a doomsday device. It needs to be defused. Social media is tearing down our society. It promotes conspiracy and controversial topics for engagement. In the past, a conspiracy theorist on a street corner with poorly xeroxed copies of their manifesto would be ignored by the masses. Now they are given a bullhorn the size of Mount Everest to blast their false narratives around the world. Free speech does not mean you have a right to an elevated voice on a platform you don't own.

At this point they should bring Jesse Eisenberg back to make "The Social Network 2" and show how they're destroying our society. Then maybe people will get a clue.

 

[rafark]

Well to be honest, Facebook gives you a platform to exercise your freedom of speech. We all know people wouldn’t be able to talk so freely in an Apple-owned social network and that’s not exactly a good thing either. The problem with missinformation and violence, is not Facebook or any platform per se.

IMO it’s a good thing that people have a way to have their voices heard.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I was in an international relations/government department at college during the Arab Spring, and the overwhelming sentiment was one of hope and that social media was helping with toppling dictators/bad governments. (That turned out to be a disaster for the most part.)

My point is that by and large these are platforms that could be used for anything. Something as random as sending Gamestop's valuation through the roof.

And at one point were being heralded as helping bring democracy to the Middle East.

Humans are still free agents, and there were people who wanted to do what they did at the Capitol who *used* things like Facebook and other platforms as tools. To suggest that they were manipulated by algorithms into being idiots . . . well I think they got there on their own.

And Tim Cook himself *normalized* Donald Trump over the last four years.

This quote from him seems so hypocritical:

"we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement"

He has continually said you need a seat at the table even with people you disagree with, and he humored and placated and yes, engaged with, Donald Trump for four years.

There is a difference between seating at the decisionmaking table with decision makers that have been elected, and generating constant [fake/controversial/offensive] content that is delivered to millions of individuals a day.

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

He has my support for that statement.

An overwhelming majority of people would agree with Tim

 

[JM]

Oooohhhhhhhhh ooh Hoo Hoooooooooooo.

Facebook, You can't fight Apple on the Social Good front.... they just stomped you in the ground.

 

[Digital Dude]

Regardless of whatever secondary motive, this is the first time where I agree with Tim Cook. I do not doubt his sincerity on this topic.

 

[gene731]

Yet Facebook remains in the App Store and Parler is still gone. Even though we now know that most of the planning was done on Facebook and Twitter.

Apple is right on privacy but we all know their reasons for doing this is Bottom line and nothing to do with its Users. Removing Facebook would hurt its bottom line as people would move to Android to get Facebook back. Apple is as greedy and manipulative as

He's not wrong. It's also why American democracy has become so destructive around the world. When you want to represent the so-called popular interests of one nation in a republic, you'll see what happens to so many regions in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. The problem though is probably more about America and Americans than social media.

From the genocide of indigenous peoples to slavery and the civil war, and Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Bolivia...

America and Americans have been like this long before FB. Giant corporations, including Apple and FB, have always been part of it--often to extract resources or maintain political interest. Cook was cozying up to Trump and barely ever standing against him, but he takes a hard stance against FB.

FB's awful, no doubt, but they're not the

Go on Tim, kick it off your platform, they break the rules, inciting violence and such.
Oh that's right, you can't do that, you'll lose users in droves.

Why would Apple lose users in droves? People could still use the browser of their choice and still access FB.

 

[I7guy]

Go on Tim, kick it off your platform, they break the rules, inciting violence and such.
Oh that's right, you can't do that, you'll lose users in droves.

Or, people will just use ios safari or chrome. Don't know. I personally deleted by facebook account.

 

[robertcoogan]

One thing Apple does right.

 

[cmaier]

Well to be honest, Facebook gives you a platform to exercise your freedom of speech. We all know people wouldn’t be able to talk so freely in an Apple-owned social network and that’s not exactly a good thing either. The problem with missinformation and violence, is not Facebook or any platform per se.

IMO it’s a good thing that people have a way to have their voices heard.

Apple also has freedom of speech. Preventing your speech on Apple's hypothetical social network is no different than you telling me I am not allowed to put a sign on your front lawn.

 

[magicschoolbus]

Go Tim!!! Facebook is so invasive.. they are a cancer that spreads.