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

421–430 of 436 posts

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

#421

Post by throwawayyx96 »

mhneu wrote: post #328
zilchers wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po... >YouTube, the Great Radicalizer https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-dam... >James Damore, Google, and the YouTube radicalization of angry white men >James Damore, Google, and the YouTube radicalization of angry white men https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/prager-university >PragerU doesn’t disguise the fact that it is waging a…

Buzzfeed accusing others of using methods akin to religious indoctrination, that's quite a howler.

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

#422

Post by Faark »

karmelapple wrote: post #89
chatmasta wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

We have a term for what happened: Piracy. It wasn't "theft", since the original is still there. They made and now use an unauthorized copy. In gaming and software, ignoring or working around reversible security mechanism and violating agreements is called piracy.

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

#423

Post by mistermann »

mhneu wrote: post #411
mistermann wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This type of belief-inception is precisely what Cambridge Analytica specialized in. The DNC and their friends in the media are no slouches at it either. Or was it someone else hinting that a Nazi revival was underway, not to mention some sort of equivalent movement of misogynists who were determined to put women back in the kitchen where they belonged? > I'll use my race example again, because Robert Mercer is esse…

The difference is deception, lies, secrecy, AND the amount of money behind it. Look at the Koch network, Mercer, Adelson, Murdoch, and how much they spend on politics and related disinformation (Heritage, ALEC, SPN, Cato/Koch Fnd, NRA, Americans for "Prosp", Reason, Federalist, Breitbart, NY Post, WSJ ed, Fox, Bos Herald, Wash Ex, IJR, Daily Caller, Prager "U" etc etc. - all controlled by billionaires, and that's lea…

The billionaires who control what news the public sees aren't limited to the right end of the political spectrum though. Let's see if the data "leveraging" the Obama campaign was so proud about makes the mainstream news shall we? Maybe then I'll start to question my stance.

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

#424

Post by jdminhbg »

Spooky23 wrote: post #240
jdminhbg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work. But isn't the bigger problem sucking up the entire social graph from a small seed of users, not how those users signed up in the first place? If…

Really? You don’t see “Sign up for this quiz to find out your true personality” as different than “sign up to support change and spread the word about Barack Obama”? Facebook is a cesspool, but shady onboarding tactics makes a far more dangerous cesspool.

I don't see a difference if I didn't sign up for either of those things and I'm targeted anyway, which is what happened.

Rephrased: Both campaigns spammed non-signees, and it looks like the CA people spammed signees as well.

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

#425

Post by hueving »

dictum wrote: post #234
hueving wrote: post #221

>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re…

You do know that entire speech is in the context of illegal immigration, right?

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

#426

Post by hueving »

dictum wrote: post #390
jjeaff wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree on the bigly-level stuff (it's very similar to the facile jokes about George W. Bush being dumb) but this quote specifically is clear cut. Of course Trump is not calling Mexico/Mexicans rapists (though he does disparage Mexico shortly before it) but he was calling most Mexican-Americans criminals and rapists: since the ones Mexico sends into the US are "their rapists" and Mexico isn't "sending their best", it…

You're still parsing it incorrectly even if this speech wasn't about the wall and illegal immigration.

"their rapists" only means that some subset are rapists because it's a category included with others. There is no hint that all of the bad ones he is referring to are rapists.

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

#427

Post by nerfhammer »

Cheezmeister wrote: post #389
nerfhammer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "data" that you could get was just like what people listed in their profile page under "Interests" and things like that though. Which maybe tells you something, but not quite like home address and a list of political preferences

No, those things are in a different section of your Facebook profile.

There was never a time that home address was available from the friend graph api.

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

#428

Post by mygo »

jrimbault wrote: post #383
roywiggins wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also testified to Parliament that they had no business in Russia, and an ex-founder (who left on bad terms, admittedly) has since come out and said that when he was still there, they were sending a Russian oil company information about how to target American voters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...

Question from a [mostly] ignorant person (me, about these subjets): Why would russian intelligence use an oil company as a shell ? Does Russia sell oil to the US ? If so do they market directly to individuals in the US ?

you must not understand how deeply tied the oil companies in Russia are to their government. They are essentially the same entity.

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

#429

Post by 8ytecoder »

creato wrote: post #372
8ytecoder wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always different levels of privacy. Everybody knew Google was "reading" their emails. The understand of that was never that Google will expose your individual email to a company. Similarly people understood that Facebook used the data about them to monetize and advertise to them. I don't think anyone assumed they'd let someone else literally take that data.

I've always been incredibly suspicious of the way Facebook handled it's user data. Remember back when every website on the internet had a box that showed "random" people that liked their website, and if you had any friends that liked it, they were in there? How about all of the services using Facebook OAuth that subtly leak social graph information? For exactly this reason, Facebook OAuth is always my absolute last r…

It was blatantly obvious to me within a few years that FB had no interest in thinking through the implications of data sharing. There was a time when a friend liking a picture of their friend would show up in my news feed and clicking through it would expose the entire album to me - who is not even remotely connected to that person. That's the day I went frantically removing photos of friends and coworkers from FB and eventually all of mine as well. Facebook is very unlikely to earn back my trust ever.

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

#430

Post by DrScump »

dnomad wrote: post #358
DrScump wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people who signed up for the app knew they would be explicitly allowing this Obama-connected app access to info/friend data. But the targeted friends had no say in the matter and gave no consent to being isolated and targeted.

What on earth makes you think they "targeted friends"? What does that even mean? Did they spam friends with unwanted emails and phone calls? Did they try to propagandize friends with ads targeted to certain demographics? Did they literally light up the friends with green lasers?

  What on earth makes you think they "targeted friends"?
I wrote "the targeted friends". In other words, the "volunteer's" friends did not themselves volunteer to participate, yet their contact info was handed over, and they were then targeted.
Post reply on HN