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

391–400 of 436 posts

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

#391

Post by skilled »

I just don't see how anyone can give any credibility to Facebook at this point. For a while now, the newsfeed has been overhauled so much that it doesn't make any sense. It's a mindless stream of worthless content that doesn't have any real and tangible effect on people's lives.

More than anything, Facebook seems to have turned into a trigger-happy platform where people can quickly express their emotional state of being in exchange for some comments and likes.

There doesn't seem to be any 'protein' to the platform in terms of everyone using the platform equally. Should you comment something wrong, or something that the other person doesn't agree with -- all hell breaks loose because people want to have their voices heard.

Maybe that's just my opinion. Messenger as an app is definitely still useful and comes in handy to talk with close friends and family when away from them physically.

I am sure that some Groups generate decent content, specifically for sales, and crafty subjects, but business pages look more like billboards where a company changes their advertising message every other day. There's no sustenance to content, which makes the platform mindlessly boring.

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

#392

Post by belorn »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #199
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…

> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. Minor nit: Years ago. The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1]. Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for years and it fell upon deaf ears. Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't under…

Not just security nerds. Take for example Eben moglen, professor in law and history of law.

"So I was talking to a senior government official of this government (2012) about that outcome and he said well you know we've come to realize that we need a robust social graph of the United States. That's how we're going to connect new information to old information."

I suspect that the only reason we are hearing about the Trump campaign being the buyer is that the democrats already had the information. It is also why Facebook can not put the cards on the table since then they would not have any political allies left. Just like with the Snowden leak, privacy is not a issue for which the parties differentiates on. One can only hope that will change in the next election.

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

#393

Post by raverbashing »

ekanes wrote: post #138

Leaving FB? Exporting all your posts/data is easy: Login > little arrow at top-right > Settings > "Download a copy of your Facebook Data"

This is gold. Because it shows you info that's not accessible through the interface, like whom you unfriended or who unfriended you.

It even shows which advertisers have your info.

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

#395

Post by stickdogg »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
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…

When police are involved that's one of those 'get in line' situations. I suspect the UK authorities are far more worried about the potential for destruction of evidence that they are in hampering an 'investigation' by FB.

One can only hope that is the case.

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

#396

Post by freyir »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #199
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…

> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. Minor nit: Years ago. The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1]. Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for years and it fell upon deaf ears. Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't under…

> Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't understand what changed.

The story was linked to Trump?

Also, security nerds are attuned to how personal data might be misused. The public needs a concrete example.

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

#397

Post by ubernostrum »

belorn wrote: post #392
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. Minor nit: Years ago. The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1]. Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for years and it fell upon deaf ears. Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't under…

Not just security nerds. Take for example Eben moglen, professor in law and history of law. "So I was talking to a senior government official of this government (2012) about that outcome and he said well you know we've come to realize that we need a robust social graph of the United States. That's how we're going to connect new information to old information." I suspect that the only reason we are hearing about the T…

There's been evidence that the Trump campaign did a massively better job of taking advantage of Facebook than any other campaign, Republican or Democrat, had previously.

There's also evidence that Facebook's advertising models were a massive help -- the Trump campaign and affiliated organizations were paying much lower advertising rates than the Clinton campaign + affiliates, largely because Facebook's model prioritized the kind of controversy-and-outrage-generating stuff Trump was putting out there (since controversy and outrage drive engagement, and engagement is the metric Facebook cares about).

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

#398

Post by throwawayyx96 »

magnusss wrote: post #248
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. Minor nit: Years ago. The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1]. Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for years and it fell upon deaf ears. Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't under…

Nothing changed. What happened in many of these cases (Weinstein, Facebook) is that the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times. My only point (if there is one) is that, despite the massive proliferation of blogs and amateur media, it often takes a professional, salaried reporter to bring an important story into the public eye.

That's because there's an army of people who are quick to discredit anything coming from blogs and lesser known sources as bunk while falling all over themselves for traditional news sources like NYT. Even when the big sources completely fail at their jobs and end up piggybacking on the story. Like you're doing in this thread.

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

#399

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

zilchers wrote: post #258
oflannabhra wrote: post #170

My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s vision does not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that was heretofore impossible. Between Facebook’s political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of its use,…

For what it’s worth, I think YouTube is generally much more net positive than Facebook (especially if you stay out of the comments).

I agree. I can’t imagine a better platform for educational content. Crash Course and Khan Academy have been a godsend.

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

#400

Post by Angostura »

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?

I'm tempted to take Facebook's actions at Face value in this case. They say they were going in to audit what Analytica was up to (and to make sure nothing was deleted). I kinda believe them.
Post reply on HN