71–80 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whataboutism isn't a defense. Folks can legitimately be outraged and push for change based on CA. Reflection on past or ongoing abuses should absolutely happen.
It’s not whataboutism in the sense that both campaigns have done things that I would like to see outlawed. I was merely pointing out a peculiar selectivity in reporting and outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Well duh, it says it right there in section 37, paragraph 12, in dense legalese – how could anyone be surprised?" Perhaps the very best thing that could come out of this is an end to the longstanding legal fig leaf of lengthy, complex legal documents presented as click-through agreements somehow constituting "informed consent."
I fully agree with this, there should be laws that enforce TOS length and legibility for those who didn't take the bar exam or had their personal counsel available before clicking I Agree. Except that the folks who'd write such laws...
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.
I find it remarkable that people don't understand there's a non-subtle difference between signing up voluntarily on the Obama website using Facebook and consenting to the information collection vs. signing up for a quiz from an unrelated company and having that data used by the Trump campaign. If you don't understand the difference, it is the same difference between having consensual sex with your girlfriend and rapi…
("Online, the get-out-the-vote effort continued with a first-ever attempt at using Facebook on a mass scale to replicate the door-knocking efforts of field organizers. In the final weeks of the campaign, people who had downloaded an app were sent messages with pictures of their friends in swing states. They were told to click a button to automatically urge those targeted voters to take certain actions, such as registering to vote, voting early or getting to the polls.")
Note that I specifically picked an article from 2012 because the past 48 hours has seen quite a few articles discussing the Obama Facebook campaign -- articles which I'd argue are likely subject to a taint of bias, given the recent CA events (I'd guess that journalists are digging for a story, which tends to skew perspectives). Anyway, this kind of targeting is, in hindsight, not really OK with me -- but I think the line here is that the Obama campaign collected information and asked your friends (who supported the campaign) to pitch in by asking particular friends to vote. This year's election was much more subtle, since instead targeted voters were treated to a slew of biased ads and propaganda stories. At least, that's how I see it.
Also, while I don't disagree with your analogy, anything involving sexual assault is probably going to hurt rather than help your arguments with most crowds. I don't think it's something we should ignore, of course, but we should keep in mind that it's a strong metaphor -- akin to calling someone "literally Hitler" -- so you might want to reconsider that in the future. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to be helpful, so feel free to ignore my unsolicited advice.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/tech/web/obama-campaign-tech-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it remarkable that people don't understand there's a non-subtle difference between signing up voluntarily on the Obama website using Facebook and consenting to the information collection vs. signing up for a quiz from an unrelated company and having that data used by the Trump campaign. If you don't understand the difference, it is the same difference between having consensual sex with your girlfriend and rapi…
The world would be a much better place if people weren't so utterly ignorant of their personal bias.
Can any lawyers summarize the actual lawsuit? What do these investors want exactly, more money? The stock price went up by any measure, from Feb 3, 2017 to Mar 19, 2018, so it can't be compensation for that. Unless they are willing to give those gains back?
I have read the lawsuit, and it accuses Facebook of making false and misleading statements in their data privacy policy. It takes issue with this section of Facebook's privacy policy: While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have: • rec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I click a button that says I agree to share my data with a third party app, I am also clicking it on behalf of all of my friends. Where in the TOS does it say that?
Once again, your friends agreed to the possibility of this happening when they agreed to the TOS. I’m on my mobile phone right now, so I won’t be combing through the TOS looking for the specific clause atm. Maybe in an edit later. But it’s there.
If both parties aren't all committed or informed, this is simliar an intoxicated person entering a legally binding agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree with this, there should be laws that enforce TOS length and legibility for those who didn't take the bar exam or had their personal counsel available before clicking I Agree. Except that the folks who'd write such laws...
Or create a universal TOS where service creators can just check off various options, in the same way that Creative Commons created a universe copyright licensing agreement.
I recall reading once that a person would need a lifetime's worth of time (50 years? 80?) just to read and understand the legal ramifications of the contracts and TOS he or she must agree to in order to use software.
Clicking "I agree" is probably the most obvious and common lie told by humanity today. Something has to change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea I'm still baffled why this is 'news'. Facebook and Mark Z have been very upfront with investors and the public about the lack of privacy that users should expect when using their platform.
They haven't been upfront. That's the whole point. They violated their own policies, allowed others to do it, and failed to disclose it.
"...defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that Facebook violated its own data privacy policies by allowing third parties access to personal data of millions of Facebook users without their consent..." The "without their consent" part is BS, as is this lawsuit. When you use Facebook platform apps, you have to consent to the disclosure of your information to the developer, and have to ag…
Applications using Facebook Graph 2.+ (which is the only option since Spring 2015 or so) who access friend data may only access data of friends who have also given consent to your app. So if A and C log into a Facebook app, and A is friends with B and C, the app can only be aware that A and C exist. This is true of legacy and new Facebook applications. It used to be possible to get basically everything about B (name, age, gender, photo, etc), but that all got shut down when Graph API 1.0 was discontinued. If this is somehow not the case for some Facebook apps that got special permission or there is a hack to get at the data, that would be a huge breach of trust.