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

341–350 of 436 posts

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

#341

Post by Retra »

briandear wrote: post #283
Retra wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bias there is largely do to the differences in behaviors and histories of the parties involved. It's one thing for a charity group to run a donation center, and a wholly different thing for a life-long con artist to do it. It is a rationally induced bias.

You're saying that it's ok for the media to attempt to influence people if you happen to agree with the message?

If I wanted to say that, I would have. The situation today is very different from when Obama campaigned. For one, the FBI & CIA didn't announce that Russians interfered during Obama's campaign. So it's really no mystery that people are paying attention to what the Trump campaign is doing.

And that's ignoring the fact that Cambridge Analytica was apparently breaking laws.

Either way, it is ok for the media to 'influence people'. If you're going to be vague, then we may as well say that is their whole reason for being. And if I wanted them to advocate one message over another, what difference is it to you? That's politics.

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

#342

Post by fuck_google »

mistermann wrote: post #331
briandear wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets. The "professional" journalists working for the NY Ti…

And yet, almost everyone continues to insist that the system is more or less clean, even though it is blatantly obvious news and politics is lies and propaganda from top to bottom. Bring on the smug downvotes boys, but until all media, social networks, and the overall internet can be brought completely under government control, it will continue because there is simply too much criminal activity going on everywhere.

Like they are trying to do in Russia, China, and Iran to name a few examples?

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

#343

Post by daddosi »

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.

Or even more generic: this is every advertisement platform's business model. They just perfected it.

Who knows, if it gets any worse, we might finally be convinced to pay for our things.

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

#344

Post by iliketosleep »

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...

wow.. that's the most damning report i've ever seen on how politics is manipulated in this modern age.

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

#345

Post by chc »

ekianjo wrote: post #209
daodedickinson wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people couldn't understand ToS agreements if they had the energy to read them, which they don't. They assume protections in place that aren't there because things like the bill of rights do not apply.

> Most people couldn't understand ToS agreements if they had the energy to read them, which they don't. It's easy to understand, however, the business model of companies like Facebook if you don't pay for the service. That's what Facebook users should realize by themselves.

The "easy-to-understand" business model of a service like Facebook is that they show ads on it. That's pretty different from what we're talking about here.

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

#346

Post by daddosi »

mistermann wrote: post #331
briandear wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets. The "professional" journalists working for the NY Ti…

And yet, almost everyone continues to insist that the system is more or less clean, even though it is blatantly obvious news and politics is lies and propaganda from top to bottom. Bring on the smug downvotes boys, but until all media, social networks, and the overall internet can be brought completely under government control, it will continue because there is simply too much criminal activity going on everywhere.

Quality authors afiliated to prominent prestigious publishers printed on the finest cloths imaginable. Not only were their words and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid.

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

#347

Post by Terr_ »

berberous wrote: post #337
briandear wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets. The "professional" journalists working for the NY Ti…

NYT finally published because Ashley Judd went on the record. NYT knew just like so many others, but that was really mostly just based on rumors...how do you possibly publish something like that and risk the lawsuits? You need solid evidence to make taking the risk a responsible choice, and in a case like Weinstein's, that really means at a minimum someone needs to go on the record.

I don't know whether Weinstein would have qualified as a "Public Figure" before the news coverage.

If not, he would have been in a substantially better position to sue for libel.

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

#348

Post by rifung »

jjeaff wrote: post #287
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the original quote from his speech in 2015: > When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. "They're rapists." is pretty self-explanatory. "And some, I assume, are good people." is indicative of Trump's sense of the scale of "good" versus "…

That's a disingenuous transcript. "They're rapists" is much more likely to be, "their rapists". And it makes a big difference. (as in, "...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists.") In other words, they aren't sending their best, they are sending drug dealers, criminals, rapists, etc. That's completely different than that transcript's implication, which would be like saying, "they aren't sending…

> Unless you aren't a native speaker, I'm inclined to believe that you are being willfully disingenuous by spreading that the latter was what he meant to say.

I'm a native speaker but "they're" makes sense to me here?

> They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.

The way I read it, at this sentence the first "they" refers to Mexico, while the second refers to the people who (illegally?) immigrated. He then says

> They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

This "they're" follows directly after and again refers to the immigrants because they are "bringing" drugs and not "sending" drugs, or at least that was my interpretation.

Is that wrong?

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

#349

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

mirimir wrote: post #327
RpFLCL wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality…

There's a clear distinction between selling widgets based on however-detailed behavioral profiling, and influencing the results of elections.

>influencing the results of elections.

I’d like some explaination of $1.2 billion is spent on Clinton some of which came from Saudi, Canada, UK, Australia, Norway and that’s all well and good! But $500,000 spent against her is “influencing elections”.

Is Facebook advertising that effective!?

I’d really appreciate if people stopped using the term “influencing elections” that’s the whole point of campaigning. In related news, you don’t have to like him, but Trump won fairly.

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

#350

Post by downandout »

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’m stunned that this didn’t end with the Facebook crew being arrested for trespassing. Is it legal in the U.K. for a mob of people with no legal authority to walk into a private business and demand anything from anyone?
Post reply on HN