41–50 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder... were one to check every story about this posted to HN, what percentage would contain a comment claiming that Obama did the same or worse?
But he did though...and there was no scandal then. Why now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should investors be able to sue a company anytime its stock goes down?
Facebook is a public company. They have strict rules related to informing stock owners and insider trading. Investors should be able to win a lawsuit if they can prove that company did not immediately disclsee important information, falsified information or that some owners were privy to insider information when they traded (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).
I find it remarkable that when Obama did something similar in 2012, it was hailed as a major strength of his campaign and nobody had any problems with FB.
The data & privacy abuse by the Obama campaign was in fact dramatically worse. As an opinion piece at TheHill.com noted today: > The former Obama director of integration and media analytics stated that, during the 2012 campaign, Facebook allowed the Obama team to “suck out the whole social graph”; Facebook “was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that…
I'll truly never understand the people who defend Facebook to the death on here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me where I'm wrong but did it not used to be the case that facebook apps could access almost as much info about your friends as they could about you? So where is the consent? Fred gives consent to run a personality quiz and its associated data gathering - Fred's 180 friends didn't.
That consent is contained in the TOS that you and all of your friends agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Further, the access to friend data has always been more limited than you imply here, and more recently, it’s become so limited that using apps for data collection about friends is almost a pointless endeavor.
This is why we need informed consent for data collection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is a public company. They have strict rules related to informing stock owners and insider trading. Investors should be able to win a lawsuit if they can prove that company did not immediately disclsee important information, falsified information or that some owners were privy to insider information when they traded (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).
> (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time). It's more interesting than that: > Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any insider at any other company Given that there were indications that he knew well before today, there may be a case. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-s...
>Zuckerberg's sales accounted for the most, by far. He announced plans in September to sell 35 million to 75 million shares over the next 18 months to fund philanthropic efforts.
It's not new and was announced in September 2017.
From the same article:
>CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly scheduled programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder... were one to check every story about this posted to HN, what percentage would contain a comment claiming that Obama did the same or worse?
But he did though...and there was no scandal then. Why now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me where I'm wrong but did it not used to be the case that facebook apps could access almost as much info about your friends as they could about you? So where is the consent? Fred gives consent to run a personality quiz and its associated data gathering - Fred's 180 friends didn't.
That consent is contained in the TOS that you and all of your friends agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Further, the access to friend data has always been more limited than you imply here, and more recently, it’s become so limited that using apps for data collection about friends is almost a pointless endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That consent is contained in the TOS that you and all of your friends agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Further, the access to friend data has always been more limited than you imply here, and more recently, it’s become so limited that using apps for data collection about friends is almost a pointless endeavor.
If you were to ask 30 Facebook users whether or not Fred taking a stupid personality quiz leaked all their info, 29 of them would say no. This is why we need informed consent for data collection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data & privacy abuse by the Obama campaign was in fact dramatically worse. As an opinion piece at TheHill.com noted today: > The former Obama director of integration and media analytics stated that, during the 2012 campaign, Facebook allowed the Obama team to “suck out the whole social graph”; Facebook “was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that…
The Trump case complicates "dramatically worse," since the issue is that the data was sold to third parties who ultimately affected the election with it.
This leak was not the biggest, or even the most detailed source of voter information controlled by the Republican party.
What Facebook did is a disservice to it's users - not to the democratic process. Framing it is as such is nothing but sour grapes.