Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#151

Post by grzm » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #150

icebraining wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your previous comment is that it's not even clear from what are you dissenting.

Fair enough, but it wouldn't have made any difference. Disagreement with this particular aspect of the local culture will get you a downvote, not a discussion. Any discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture, to teach you the "facts" of "how things are". Jonathan Haidt has studied this psychological phenomenon quite extensively and in my opinion it does a good job of ex…

I've found Haidt's work very useful. One of the things I've taken from Haidt is how important both sides of the communication are. Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here ("ny discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture" and "it's a shame no one's interested") does exactly the opposite, regardless of how accurate you might feel the description is.

If you're looking for nuance and constructive discussion, it's crucial to put that foot forward yourself. And understanding, given the climate, that it's likely going to be a lot of work, as you're working against built-in human psychological biases that are unfortunately being reinforced by many trends in media, both traditional and online. Loading your discourse with the phrases you do here are working against that. I'm glad that you've found Haidt interesting in some way. Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it. There's no quick fix.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#152

Post by bordercases » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #81

adventured wrote: post #25

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…

> It's universally understood why the media wasn't interested in turning that story into a scandal. I agree that it's bad (not just looks bad), but you can't blame the media for something they didn't know about. Fox News went on for years about Benghazi. So in 2018, you can't complain about media being too friendly to democrats. Also, the piece links to a tweet[1] in 2018, not an article from 2012. [1] https://twitte…

fox news != media and you know it.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#153

Post by _khau » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

Armisael16 wrote: post #137

throwaway84742 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of whataboutism is excusing someone’s actions because someone else has done the same. What I’m pointing out here is the opposite.

Whataboutism isn’t excusing; it’s deflecting. To quote from the OED: “The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue” This is exactly what you’ve done.

While whataboutism is definitey toxic to conversation, I've noticed a lot people tend to throw accusations of whataboutism around when they are uncomfortable with their hypocrisy being pointed out.

This is also highly damaging to discourse.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#154

Post by thousandautumns » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

throwaway84742 wrote: post #112

rtpg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more of an aside, but given that Clinton lost by so little, _very many things_ caused her to lose. Because of such a small margin, for almost any X: "X had little effect" and "X caused Clinton to lose" can be simultaneously true. If you lose by only one vote, then every vote caused you to lose. (Of course if you're running a campaign, going after things that are bigger issues is more useful, but when we're ta…

She did lose by quite a bit, though. 74 electoral votes out of 538. And that’s after rigging the primaries and spending twice as much as Trump did. Not even 1.2 billion could make this albatross fly.

Electoral votes are a terrible way to measure the closeness of an election though. You could win every state by a single vote, and according to the electoral votes it would look like a blowout, but in reality it would have been the closest election in modern history.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#155

Post by thousandautumns » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

LukaAl wrote: post #52

throwaway84742 wrote: post #11

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…

You are right, that is non-subtle difference and should be noted. But I feel like the most egregious aspect of the process was being able to gather data on unsuspecting users by getting their friends to use the app. That's entirely legal, but definitely is the part that I think most people take the biggest offense to, and that is something that was done by both the Trump and Obama teams.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#156

Post by rhizome » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #146

downandout wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not how it works Actually, that is how it works. Unless there is an NDA in place between you and I, I can share anything you choose to share with me, especially in the context of a social network where we both agreed to and are bound by the same TOS where we authorized exactly this kind of sharing.

In what jurisdiction? That's not true in the EU (even pre-GDPR), where Facebook also operates.

My heuristic is that if they don't make it clear what jurisdiction they're talking about, they're talking about the US.

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#157

Post by rhizome » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

JimmyAustin wrote: post #95

mancerayder wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. So far so good. Where was the part where I agreed they could harvest my profile information because a friend filled out a quiz/questionnaire/etc.?

From https://www.facebook.com/terms.php , item 2.3 When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To le…

Let's see what the readability of the FB TOS is, using a random Googled analyzer, in this case https://readable.io:

Readability Grade Levels

A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. A score of around 10-12 is roughly the reading level on completion of high school. Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8.

    Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level  12.6
    Gunning Fog Index           13.9
    Coleman-Liau Index          11.8
    SMOG Index                  14.9
    Automated Readability Index 12.4
    Average Grade Level	        13.1

Text Quality:

    Sentences > 30 Syllables  80  53%
    Sentences > 20 Syllables 115  77%
    Words > 4 Syllables       37   1%
    Words > 12 Letters         2   0%
    Passive Voice Count       17   1%
    Adverb Count             116   4%
    Cliché Count               0   0%

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#158

Post by icebraining » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #156

icebraining wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what jurisdiction? That's not true in the EU (even pre-GDPR), where Facebook also operates.

My heuristic is that if they don't make it clear what jurisdiction they're talking about, they're talking about the US.

My comment is a bit of a passive-aggressive pushback against that :)

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#159

Post by mistermann » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #151

mistermann wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but it wouldn't have made any difference. Disagreement with this particular aspect of the local culture will get you a downvote, not a discussion. Any discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture, to teach you the "facts" of "how things are". Jonathan Haidt has studied this psychological phenomenon quite extensively and in my opinion it does a good job of ex…

I've found Haidt's work very useful. One of the things I've taken from Haidt is how important both sides of the communication are. Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here ("ny discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture" and "it's a shame no one's interested") does exactly the opposite, regardless of how accurate you might feel the description is. I…

I mostly agree, however:

> Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here

> Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it.

My argument is that HN is increasingly becoming a ~"progressive, illiberal echo chamber", where dissenting ideas are not welcome or open for discussion, and censored (to the degree that people like me often have to wait up to several hours or until the next day (in which case the discussion is effectively over) to post a comment as I am almost always in the penalty box, for the reasons being discussed here).

If that's true, should the onus be only on the censored side to fix the situation?

If you believe my claim isn't true:

- do you believe that it is possible for any community to be like this?

- do you believe HN has any imperfections at all in this respect?

Re: Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting

#160

Post by grzm » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 7:02 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #159

grzm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found Haidt's work very useful. One of the things I've taken from Haidt is how important both sides of the communication are. Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here ("ny discussion, if you're lucky to get one, would be better described as a re-education lecture" and "it's a shame no one's interested") does exactly the opposite, regardless of how accurate you might feel the description is. I…

I mostly agree, however: > Blaming everything on "the other side" as you are doing here > Step up and work the problem, rather than contribute to it. My argument is that HN is increasingly becoming a ~"progressive, illiberal echo chamber", where dissenting ideas are not welcome or open for discussion, and censored (to the degree that people like me often have to wait up to several hours or until the next day (in whic…

If you think the problem is solely (or mostly) on one side (regardless of which side that is), then there's no point on continuing this discussion, as you're completely ignoring my opening point: that good communication requires all sides to participate in a constructive manner. You must take into account the effect your behavior and words have, beyond your intent, and beyond what you believe the content of what you're trying to convey. You need to take into account the human in general, and if you know more about the human you're engaging with, what you know of them.

If that's not something you believe, take to heart, and practice, you're part of the problem, and it's not worth my while to continue attempting to engage. This is regardless of one's ideological views, and something Haidt hammers home repeatedly.

Edit to add: Of course HN has imperfections. (And to answer your other question society has imperfections: to suggest otherwise is facile and disingenuous.) Online discourse is hard, and new, and we haven't come close to figuring out the best ways to do so. That doesn't excuse each of us taking responsibility for trying to make it the best we can.