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

151–160 of 436 posts

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

#151

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

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

One's market value doesn't crash by tens of billions when investors learn everything is going as intended. This is a side effect of Facebook's business model which Facebook ignored. Chickens are coming home to roost.

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

#152

Post by metafunctor »

tptacek wrote: post #144
metafunctor wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But, what is your point? That HN shouldn't crucify Stamos, there is something else more important we should be looking at?

Just that Stamos' clarification doesn't really clarify anything in the NYT story itself.

Yeah. The timing's weird, but stranger things have happened...

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

#153

Post by ABeeSea »

zilchers wrote: post #37
fooey wrote: post #17

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…

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?

Facebook is complicit in a lot of shady shit happening with Russia from the very beginning. Including taking money that was laundered for the Kremlin when they were strapped for cash in the early days.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zuckerberg-got-early-business...

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

#154

Post by maneesh »

Hmm just posted by @alexstamos:

“Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.”

https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=2...

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

#155

Post by linkregister »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #100
danso wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the argument was that Clinton voters switched to Trump. More that Clinton voters were persuaded to stay home. Which is a perfectly valid campaign strategy -- e.g. why campaign funds are so vital to a successful campaign. But political advertising is required to have disclosures. That foreign actors were allowed to push propaganda with the aim of influencing the election with the unknowing assistance of…

Frankly speaking, if someone should took the blame for Clinton voters staying home, it's traditional media. They were constantly talking how her victory is predicated, how she is supposed "to take Ohio, to take Florida, to take Wisconsin", NYT and HuffPost showing election calculators with "95% probability of Hillary winning" (Nate Silver was the only one who said that Trump has 30% chance, and he was laughed out of…

Of course traditional media is primarily to blame for this outcome, but legislators have no business addressing the 1st Amendment-protected activities of the New York Times et al.

Lawmakers have a duty to mitigate foreign interference in U.S. elections. Foreign campaign political campaigns, through traditional and social media, need to be monitored and regulated. The regulation is there. The enforcement is still catching up.

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

#156

Post by dpwm »

mandeepj wrote: post #118
fooey wrote: post #17

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…

Facebook had enough time to cleanup this mess with Cambridge Analytica (CA). The news about how CA exploited their platform was out just after 2016 election results. If FB was even little bit serious about it they could have done at that time what they are doing now

Perhaps Facebook were contacted for comment on the Channel 4 story (in which CA's CEO suggested something that sounded a lot like sex trafficking Ukranians in to Sri Lanka to help a fictional Sri Lankan businessman discredit his opponents) and by BBC's Newsnight (in which the CEO was interviewed before the Channel 4 interview aired but was to be shown at 22.30 GMT) and realised that something big was going down involving CA.

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

#157

Post by nl »

gowld wrote: post #47
fooey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?

That's one of the reasons this behavior has been banned since 2014.

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

#159

Post by netsharc »

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.

Well, that's what makes Cambridge Analytica so good, they have the data, and they're cheap. They just needed to target undecided voters in swing states, and through trawling Facebook data, they knew which voters to influence, and how to influence them, because they also have their psychological profiles. And how do you target them? By posting Facebook ads where you define your "target market" so narrowly that it basically hits individuals.

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

#160

Post by jacobolus »

RpFLCL wrote: post #132
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think culturally we've accepted that political propaganda is different from run-of-the-mill corporate advertisement. Even the words we use are different: few people would call a TV spot "propaganda", even though both seek to influence people to act in a certain way. People understand and accept the concept and execution of advertisement. Propaganda is not received in the same way.

Interesting point. I think you're probably right. There's a different emotional impact between being manipulated to consume versus being manipulated in what you think. Of course at the end of the day it's exploiting a similar vulnerability in our wetware.

Also, when that propaganda is full of invented racist conspiracy theories and defamatory lies about the opposition, it starts getting pretty ethically gross.

If the propaganda was fundamentally truthful and respectful (e.g. sharing additional accurate factual analysis that people just didn’t know about), it wouldn’t have quite the same odious smell.

There’s not that much distance between some of the ads and fake news stories flashed in front of people before the election and e.g. ISIS recruiting materials or Nazi propaganda from the 1930s.

Post reply on HN