41–50 of 160 posts
> Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do Thanks for striking down the bad guys, Facebook, our ever vigilant guardian of personal information.
That's exactly what I wanted to say. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house... none of these parties--Facebook included--can be trusted with any data. They're all out to make a buck with it!
No point in sharing dinner.
What stops them from creating a holding company and getting access from that? Seems like a rat and mouse game and feels like more a PR move because of recent bad news exposure.
Nothing. Just like the adtech industry in general. So much of the spam and fraud could be stopped if there was even minimal regulation and actual consequences, but there isn't, so these actions are usually little more than PR, especially once all the damage is already done.
Is fb guy go for president ... those ent I agree but if you look into those payment record from trump election to trump org (ignore whether it is paid for cover up or not) you found out there is a lot of ways you can find conflict of interest and bad press. But no one care.
You think human are wiser but in a sense human mistake repeat and repeat.
No. Couldn’t be
Then it comes again and again and again. You just not sure any more.
That is American which can have kids not allow to drive but can get a gun, crazy American but how about chinese ...
You thought cultural revolution and Mao taught a lesson. Then here goes again. And who will silly enough to hang on power as a sole guy. Power in the past get you a lot and may be. But what is to gain for a naked power without succession can give you. Like Mao. Who just kill his successor as long as he can. Why? Then here goes again.
For this event as a stream of events yes I know like water they is not the same water and history do not exactly repeat.
But it feels like water and you feel it has been seen before.
Game theory with unsteady hand and not totally repeat but same game.
Why we have to play these again and again, my dear Buddha.
> Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do Thanks for striking down the bad guys, Facebook, our ever vigilant guardian of personal information.
Excuse me, I think you dropped this -> " "
Good. We can expect such behavior from vile conservative companies like Cambridge Analytics, funded by Mercer and the cause for Brexit. Why are they even allowed on FB? Such extreme groups should never be allowed.
> cause for Brexit.
> Such extreme groups should never be allowed.
I surmise "extreme" in this context merely means "conservative" or "isolationist".
Voting for Brexit is hardly extreme or fringe. So much so, in fact, that most of the UK did so.
I don’t understand why it was legal for trump to hire Cambridge Analytica, which is foreign owned, to influence the presidential election. I also don’t understand why Russia gets all the news, when this foreign election tampering was so much more effective and done in the open. [edit: Downvotes. Wow. My comment is certainly on topic, so I guess “Foreign corporations shouldn’t participate in our elections” is controve…
> Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do Thanks for striking down the bad guys, Facebook, our ever vigilant guardian of personal information.
That's exactly what I wanted to say. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house... none of these parties--Facebook included--can be trusted with any data. They're all out to make a buck with it!
Also, it is a org culture. If your org do something at least not all insider will say no we do not do this and just let it happen. But once some do it at least someone internal may raise it.
Also back to basic someone will hold the data. The key is not to allow one but a few or many or ultimately peer to peer. But can this happen and if not (yet) what you do now.
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/30/facebook-failed-to-prote...
>In late 2015, the turkers began reporting that the Global Science Research survey had abruptly shut down. The Guardian had published a report that exposed exactly who the turkers were working for. Their data was being collected by Aleksandr Kogan, a young lecturer at Cambridge University. Kogan founded Global Science Research in 2014, after the university’s psychology department refused to allow him to use its own pool of data for commercial purposes. The data collection that Kogan undertook independent of the university was done on behalf of a military contractor called Strategic Communication Laboratories, or SCL. The company’s election division claims to use “data-driven messaging” as part of “delivering electoral success.”
>Shortly after The Guardian published its 2015 article, Facebook contacted Global Science Research and requested that it delete the data it had taken from Facebook users. Facebook’s policies give Facebook the right to delete data gathered by any app deemed to be “negatively impacting the Platform.” The company believes that Kogan and SCL complied with the request, which was made during the Republican primary, before Cambridge Analytica switched over from Ted Cruz’s campaign to Donald Trump’s. It remains unclear what was ultimately done with the Facebook data, or whether any models or algorithms derived from it wound up being used by the Trump campaign.
>In public, Facebook continues to maintain that whatever happened during the run-up to the election was business as usual. “Our investigation to date has not uncovered anything that suggests wrongdoing,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.
>Facebook appears not to have considered Global Science Research’s data collection to have been a serious ethical lapse. Joseph Chancellor, Kogan’s main collaborator on the SCL project and a former co-owner of Global Science Research, is now employed by Facebook Research. “The work that he did previously has no bearing on the work that he does at Facebook,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept.
It's too easy for this information to get out. There's basically no penalty, you just use as you want and year's late facebook cuts you off? So you start a new company, owned by a new llc, get the lawyers to sign the 'i am not evil' doc and repeat. There's no way this will have any impact until there are criminal citations on the people involved. In this case, because it's the us, there's not going to be anything cri…
What stops them from creating a holding company and getting access from that? Seems like a rat and mouse game and feels like more a PR move because of recent bad news exposure.
> What stops them from creating a holding company Nothing. Just like the adtech industry in general. So much of the spam and fraud could be stopped if there was even minimal regulation and actual consequences, but there isn't, so these actions are usually little more than PR, especially once all the damage is already done.