141–150 of 181 posts
Kind of like how FB's performance became part of annual review & promotion rubrics for employees recently?
Can other employees spike projects started by anti-privacy gordon gekkos to improve short term metrics?
Why are there not more granular privacy controls?
Why is what a user sees of their friends that which is in the audience for a post? I don't need to see what someone "commented on".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But.. they do, though. You can (and people do) make a very targeted ad, then query what users matched with it, and so on until you've sufficient data for your purposes. Plus you can use their public APIs to then match their ad data with the users public information. Facebook knows this, and does not prevent it (by hiding user identifiers for instance) because it's part of their strategy.
Ah now this is sneaky. Is this widespread? Any sources?
The audience size tricks like uploading an audience, then adding one to it and reuploading won’t work. There’s a cardinality fudging thing.
This one: If you don't use Whatsapp but a friend of yours does, he has to give Whatsapp access to his address book which includes your name as well (although you don't use Whatsapp). So the question is: Does Facebook/Whatsapp have information about such passive users (e.g. the name or phone number)?
This is already known, yes, and they're called shadow profiles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To really get off-topic: The use of 'she' is likely in immitation of the female-gender pronouns that are used to refer to ships and other watercraft or like nation-states, as is common in English. Likening FB to a large ship or country is not unreasonable in terms of how big corporations can be, and I think it may be applicable to larger firms like GE, Ford, Shell, etc that do not have majority voting control by one…
As a native English speaker, I have always been irritated by that usage (which I’ll be the first to admit is not really rational) and I’m pleased that it seems to be dying out.
There are some languages that don't have gender for pronouns, even.
Or some languages that have 2 genders for most things but 3 genders for pronouns (eg. Spanish distinguishes between este and esto because Latin distinguished between iste and istud, but most masculine/neuter contrasts of -us vs. -um did not survive their final consonants no longer being pronounced. Whether or not a language retains such a distinction can appear highly coincidental in the face of such seemingly unrelated phonetic changes.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To really get off-topic: The use of 'she' is likely in immitation of the female-gender pronouns that are used to refer to ships and other watercraft or like nation-states, as is common in English. Likening FB to a large ship or country is not unreasonable in terms of how big corporations can be, and I think it may be applicable to larger firms like GE, Ford, Shell, etc that do not have majority voting control by one…
As a native English speaker, I have always been irritated by that usage (which I’ll be the first to admit is not really rational) and I’m pleased that it seems to be dying out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don’t think this is as credible of a threat as you paint it to be. Terrorists don’t go around killing people for banning them from forums.
This is such a strange response. First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue regardless of how the terrorists respond. > Terrorists don't go around killing people for banning them from forums. It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do (especially when used as a rebuttal to someone expressing concern for real people who hav…
Agreed, but it’s not an issue because they’re going to get killed by terrorists. I’m objecting to the dishonest framing, not trying to argue that this isn’t an issue.
>It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do
Your assumptions seem at least as arrogant.
>I don't have any experience interacting with terrorists
I do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a native English speaker, I have always been irritated by that usage (which I’ll be the first to admit is not really rational) and I’m pleased that it seems to be dying out.
Personally, I think it's beautiful and poetic and adds a sense of life to an inanimate or immaterial thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a strange response. First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue regardless of how the terrorists respond. > Terrorists don't go around killing people for banning them from forums. It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do (especially when used as a rebuttal to someone expressing concern for real people who hav…
>First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue Agreed, but it’s not an issue because they’re going to get killed by terrorists. I’m objecting to the dishonest framing, not trying to argue that this isn’t an issue. >It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do Your assumptions seem at least as arrogant. >I don't have any experie…
This isn't some sort of internet pissing contest with people you don't know and will never meet; that is literally any other online forum that I've seen. This is a forum to discuss issues with people who are interested in them. You are purposefully diluting the conversation, and for what? The lolz?
Go somewhere else with this crap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a strange response. First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue regardless of how the terrorists respond. > Terrorists don't go around killing people for banning them from forums. It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do (especially when used as a rebuttal to someone expressing concern for real people who hav…
>First of all, Facebook's inability to keep their moderators' identities private is an issue Agreed, but it’s not an issue because they’re going to get killed by terrorists. I’m objecting to the dishonest framing, not trying to argue that this isn’t an issue. >It seems incredibly arrogant to assume that you know what terrorists will and will not do Your assumptions seem at least as arrogant. >I don't have any experie…
>I do
Is it something you're at liberty or willing to talk about? Cause I'm intrigued.