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

Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#51

Post by TorKlingberg »

EJTH wrote: post #25
dwetterau wrote: post #3

If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca... [2] http://…

It doesn't seem like they are actually targetting "extremists" since islamist sharia groups get to stay on facebook while all groups opposing such a movement gets shutdown instantly.

Islamist groups get shut down on Facebook all the time.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#52

Post by gajjanag »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #9

What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail, planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that. e.g.: https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zucker...

Well, he did hire Bush and Obama campaign managers: https://qz.com/882475/facebook-fb-ceo-mark-zuckberg-hires-da...

Associated hn discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371991

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#53

Post by kybernetyk »

dx034 wrote: post #29
mseidl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot that google did that, but facebook was just in your face with it. I was talking to a friend on facebook about some ice climbing and if it was ok for a beginner, and very shortly after I saw ads on my facebook for ice climbing lessons. With google the worst I see if I search for something sometimes I see ads for those.

And Googles version is probably much more successful. I noticed the same with Facebook and I don't think it's very effective. Talk once about a topic or like a page and you'll see related ads for a long time. Google seems to have smarter algorithms that try to detect a trend to figure out if you're really interested in something or just mentioned it once.

Amazon is a similar offender.

"Oh, you bought a fridge yesterday? How about you buy another one?"

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#54

Post by dahart »

rubyfan wrote: post #21

The headline is slightly misleading. It would be more salacious had the manifesto been published long ago and had the line been recently added. In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.

I thought the same thing once I read the quote before & after. So I looked at the headline again and decided the wording was accurate but I'd gotten the wrong idea about it's meaning. The headline could say "AI monitoring of private messages", that might have cleared up one minor angle on it for me. But whatevs I suppose, headlines are misleading all the time, that's why you always have to read the article, right?

I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it anyway. It could mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or completely. It could mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or the announcement of monitoring. It could mean there are business concerns with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy. It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't be as transparent as he truly wants to be.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#55

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

dwetterau wrote: post #3

If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca... [2] http://…

google doesn't call gmail "private email"... that is the difference. if they did, they could be sued. facebook lawyers realized this, and fixed it.

you're all idiots. [1]

[1] http://you're.all.idiots

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#56

Post by Raphmedia »

efdee wrote: post #27
EJTH wrote: post #24

Im sick and tired of facebook. Yesterday I shared a picture from Syria depicting a homosexual being executed by being thrown off a building - In a political discussion, of course this gets censored within hours. Meanwhile there is groups where this picture also appears, albeit in a another context that actually encourages this type of punishment, and it gets to stay on facebook.

It seems kind of obvious what happens - the picture you posted was reported by your peers in the discussion. The group that encourages this type of punishment probably will not have members that report the picture, so it doesn't get deleted (as fast). You don't need to blame Facebook for this.

But would it really be hard to have checks for that kind of groups automatically?

How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this group called "death to all jew" is hate speech?

Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world a better place.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#57

Post by ue_ »

tokenizer wrote: post #46

> So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Geex, let me guess. You are left leaning too! People like me think mainstream media promotes the most fake news. So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. Disagree? I have plenty of evidence... http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/148733…

>So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days.

I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content. Whether the news falls under that, I don't know, but I sure don't think censorship means 'division'.

The idea that words should be awarded an innate right to be said I see no reason for.

The rise of the right wing is worrying for a Communist like me.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#58

Post by nashashmi »

EJTH wrote: post #25
dwetterau wrote: post #3

If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca... [2] http://…

It doesn't seem like they are actually targetting "extremists" since islamist sharia groups get to stay on facebook while all groups opposing such a movement gets shutdown instantly.

There is a difference between sharia groups and extremists. They are not at all the same.

One group ponders on the implifications and simplifications of rules, and how they can follow it with ease.

While extremists try to take the most painful interpretation of rules and use demagogue speech to enforce it.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#59

Post by jllaneras »

bigbugbag wrote: post #41
jllaneras wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp is from Facebook and it implements the Signal protocol which offers end-to-end encryption. That's why Facebook with WhatsApp cannot do the same as Google does with Gmail. If they do, then their E2E encryption is fucked up.

Whatsapp is from whatsapp inc, founded by two former yahoo emplyees, then facebook bought for 19 billions dollar. Very different from "being from facebook". You can probably trust whatsapp end to end encryption as much as you can trust facebook to protect your privacy [1][2]. [1]: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/13/whatsapp-security-make-thi... [2]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israeli-firm-allegedly-selling-spy-...

I'm aware Facebook bought WhatsApp. I don't think that changes matters much though. WhatsApp is one of the "private channels" that Facebook Inc owns, and in Zuckerberg's manifesto [1] you can read:

"We are strong advocates of encryption and have built it into the largest messaging platforms in the world -- WhatsApp and Messenger."

My point is that "end-to-end encryption in private channels" and "using AI to analyze data in private channels" is incompatible.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-glob...

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#60

Post by tokenizer »

ue_ wrote: post #57
tokenizer wrote: post #46

> So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Geex, let me guess. You are left leaning too! People like me think mainstream media promotes the most fake news. So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. Disagree? I have plenty of evidence... http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/148733…

>So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content. Whether the news falls under that, I don't know, but I sure don't think censorship means 'division'. The idea that words should be awarded an innate right to be said I see no reason for. The rise of the right wing is worrying for a C…

Most people are tired of censors who propagate their moral rulesets self righteously. In the 70s/80s/90s it was the Christian right against music and video games.

Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...

Post reply on HN