Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#51

Post by whybroke »

athenot wrote: post #32

The elephant in the room is that facebook wants to directly engage with their users in order to control the advertising aspect. This startup uses the side-effect of Facebook (platform for friends to share stuff) while cutting out the business value proposition (advertising). This is sad because I'm increasingly getting annoyed at Facebook's positionning between me and my friends. It's promoting behavior that is diffe…

>It's promoting behavior that is different from real life as they stand to gain from stoking outrages and heated discussions: more active user engagement!

This undoubtedly has very serious consequences beyond merely being annoying. Trending untrue news stories, encouraging post-true controversy and providing an echo chamber for these things to intensify and become ingrained.

And doing these things on a enormous scale to a huge percentage of the population such that vast swathes of people can no longer even agree on basic facts.

It would be interesting to see how much of the bizarre political events in the west are a result of social media in general and Facebook in particular.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#52

Post by lightedman »

sctb wrote: post #50
happyslobro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will phrase it differently in the future, but I stand by the sentiment.

That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities, but just a watered-down version of that sentiment is problematic too: it doesn't teach us about anything other than how you feel, which is not part of our shared reality that is the basis of conversation. That's why we ask that comments not only be civil, but substantive, so that they're contributing to the discussion.

"That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities"

I look at it as a direct non-verbatim usage of Zuckerberg's own words against himself. After all, Zuckerberg already has this sentiment for everyone using Facebook - "Fucking morons" IIRC.

Now, what do you consider a contribution to the conversation? I've seen plenty of comments that do not do that and yet they still remain either highly-voted or at least not in the grey.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#53

Post by dfar1 »

treve wrote: post #6

> "The word spam is kind of like calling someone a rapist. It has — in [the] digital world — calling someone a spammer is the worst thing you could possibly call them." I really don't feel that spammer and rapist are even in the same league.

I hear, in jail, spammers get the same treatment as rapist.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#54

Post by wrong_variable »

kbenson wrote: post #42

Vachani is based in Brazil, where life is more affordable. He flies into San Francisco a lot, though, in an ongoing effort to stay in the tech biz. So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you woul…

You can get high speed internet in many parts of the developing world for less than 20 dollars a month - its amazing really.

You can buy food, pay rent and utils - live near a sunny beach for less than 50 dollars a month.

Of course if all SF software engineers cut their debt shackle - and used global inequality for their advantage it would wreck havoc to the current pecking order of tech capitalists.

It would allow tech workers to turn into entrepreneurs and work full time on their own ideas, create new competition and scare wall street that is dependent on recycling your wage through rent so that you actually keep a small amount of your real income.

Ofcourse no one is going to do it besides radicals like Glenn Greenwald since freedom is not useful as prestige to the average person.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#55

Post by kefka »

DanBC wrote: post #26
deckar01 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the same, but it is a powerful metaphor. Wanted email is to consensual relations as spam is to physical violation.

It's a fucking stupid metaphor that acts as a barrier to understanding. People should stop casually making jokes about rape[1] or using rape as a metaphor. [1] It's baffling to me that crimes of sexual violence are a common theme for jokes on US media.

As and aside, it also disgusts me that male-male rape is used as an additional punishment in prison, and is seen as a wide positive side effect in the "law-and-order" types.

Ive seen plenty show and movies that talk how "Bubba is going to ravage you". Because a prison sentence needs to have a side source of rape.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#56

Post by micaksica »

komali2 wrote: post #49
jsprogrammer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.

"Will need to be persuaded to compensate," i.e., sued, which will take probably 2-5 years to complete because it will be cheaper to bill lawyers than payout potentially millions to Vachani. A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often. They can afford to appeal at every level, to pay lawyers to look for hundreds of l…

> A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often.

The legal system is not the only institution affected by this.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#57

Post by ht85 »

paulddraper wrote: post #30
ht85 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, only door-to-door soliciting to a point where you have to jostle a crowd of people whenever you try to exit your property through the main door, and they try everything in their power not to budge.

> try everything in their power not to budge The first part I get, but this I don't. Deleting an email is a mouseclick. A lot easier than getting the pest control guy off my doorstep.

I was thinking about the fact that the spammers always find new creative ways to dodge anti-spam, but you're right that second part wasn't great.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#58

Post by joesmo »

szx wrote: post #24

So you own your data but they won't let just any app touch it. Apps need to comply with certain conditions and FB retains complete control. Where it gets interesting is when someone like this guy tries to circumvent this arrangement by having the user willingly supply them with their credentials. FB would never blame the user, even though that's arguably the correct way to respond, because that's a PR disaster. Wheth…

If FB retains complete control, you don't own your data. If you own your data, FB (or any other party) cannot retain complete control. Otherwise, what is the meaning of "own" that you have redefined the word to mean?

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#59

Post by jsprogrammer »

mcherm wrote: post #47
jsprogrammer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.

> it had no basis for doing so Several lower level judges disagreed with you. Although I think that the CANSPAM act ought not apply, there is no basis to claim that this was clearly settled law being ignored to make this into a malicious action.

And high judges agree.

Facebook claimed[0] that emails it sent to its users were misleading, partly, because Facebook inserted "Thanks,\nThe Facebook Team" into messages it sent out as a result of Power.com's actions.

Facebook claimed[0],

    64.    The message, drafted by Power.com, is signed by "The Facebook Team", which is both misleading and false.
If the findings [1] of the higher judges are correct, then it appears that Facebook previously argued that it constructed false evidence against Power.com -- and used it in a legal attack that destroyed Vachani's life.

[0] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/2009010...

[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/1...

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#60

Post by pvg »

lightedman wrote: post #52
sctb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities, but just a watered-down version of that sentiment is problematic too: it doesn't teach us about anything other than how you feel, which is not part of our shared reality that is the basis of conversation. That's why we ask that comments not only be civil, but substantive, so that they're contributing to the discussion.

"That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities" I look at it as a direct non-verbatim usage of Zuckerberg's own words against himself. After all, Zuckerberg already has this sentiment for everyone using Facebook - "Fucking morons" IIRC. Now, what do you consider a contribution to the conversation? I've seen plenty of comments that do not do that and yet they still remain either highly-voted or a…

Zuckerberg wasn't commenting on HN. Like everyone else, you can figure out what's constructive on a particular forum - a moderator is just pointing out something that isn't.
Post reply on HN