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

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 436 posts

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#81

Post by anigbrowl »

jstalin wrote: post #61
daodedickinson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised ?

I certainly do, but I don't recall anyone seriously alleging that they were extralegal or covert.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#82

Post by ams6110 »

jstalin wrote: post #61
daodedickinson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised ?

Absolutely they were, and many comparisons were made to the Romney campaign's ineptitude in this area.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#83

Post by this_user »

AFNobody wrote: post #63
danso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different stating it as an official policy.

Its corporate speak for "The PR department and/or my boss gave me marching orders to delete them."

And probably the legal department too. He was inadvertently delivering ammunition to anyone who might want to come after the company for this, which seems like something that might very well happen.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#84

Post by olivermarks »

weirdstuff wrote: post #59
downandout wrote: post #35

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcom…

This is the elephant in the room. U.S. based interests spent billions to influence public opinion here and abroad. But less than $1 million spent by a Russia media organization (to maybe attract viewers?) and some trolls tossed the election? I’m more than skeptical. This is a distraction campaign if here ever was one.

i360 Themis have been far more invasive for far longer in influencing US elections. Why aren't they being investigated and outed by a pitchfork and flaming pikes mob?

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#85

Post by taytus »

fooey wrote: post #42
zilchers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

Ding ding ding ding!

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#86

Post by [deleted] »

beager wrote: post #70
downandout wrote: post #35

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcom…

Not sure where you got most of that from the article, but I think we’re going to find that the data does support the theory that voters were intensely profiled and targeted with stories to make one candidate seem “unpalatable” or another one more attractive. We’re fortunately deep enough in this story that we may get a concrete answer as to what the extent of the efficacy of this operation was.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#87

Post by anigbrowl »

daodedickinson wrote: post #64
dirtyhand wrote: post #33

CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

No different than Spez @ Reddit saying he knows the Facebook accounts of anonymous users accessing adult content and can cross-reference that with their reddit accounts when they are logged in and sell that information to third parties. Reddit probably makes more money that way than any other, but that's just my guess because they clients are loaded and include sovereign states. Tons of sites are no better, probably…

No, that's massively different. Engaging in passive observation and reselling that data, while sleazy, is not the same as actively setting someone up.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#88

Post by bogomipz »

>"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer..."

This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that Chapter 6 of Sandberg's very successful book "Lean In" is titled "Seek and Speak the Truth."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In

edit COO

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#89

Post by karmelapple »

chatmasta wrote: post #26
minimaxir wrote: post #3

Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions: > I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 Archive of those deleted tweets: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311…

The man makes some extremely reasonable points. I just wrote a comment along the same lines. I'm glad to see there is some common sense at Facebook. Stamos always seemed a bit too rational to be working at a company like that. I worry what will happen to Facebook after he leaves; they were lucky to have him. Also, I think the real problem here is that the media is attempting to politicize the term "breach," and secur…

How would you define the term breach?

Is it fair to use the term breach from the perspective of the user whose data has been acquired? Or is breach only in reference to what the company that collected the data intended to do with it?

There’s also seemingly two types of breaches at play: 1. The idea of a security breach, where a company gets “hacked” 2. The idea of a breach of trust, where people had given a company data in good faith that it would not be abused, and then had it abused, even going against that company’s TOS

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#90

Post by [deleted] »

celticninja wrote: post #44
netsharc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are fre…

if there has been a breach of the law that takes precedence over contract law. If a criminal prosecution takes place and results in a conviction then it makes the civil case a much easier win (and less costly to as the government is doing the majority of the work).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN