101–110 of 583 posts
...so instead of looking into it at all, or vetting our partners, we relied on media to tell us?
Anyone else remember Beacon? This was how FB has always designed to work from the beginning. They've just been toying with the PR ways to say it to make people accept it without thinking. The election woke people up. I found this from 2011 when they shut it down as a "mistake." ( https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2011/11/our-commitment-to-the-f... ). Unfortunately, it looks like they removed the launch release - but it wo…
The sad thing is FB sounds jealous he realized more value from their data than they did. It's totally a Duh, why didn't we think of that, Clinton would have paid way more for that data than Trump did.
The trusting developers not to sell any data but putting zero safeguards in place to prevent this and extremely punitive repercussions despite being repeatedly told by the public, media, and even high level employees tells me Facebook can't plead ignorance to this and they not only knew this was happening, but they probably intended for it to happen. They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies n…
1000 word statement. Number of times the word "advertising" was mentioned: 0 Facebook continues to pretend it's business model is unicorns and kittens, not selling user data for money.
The 2007 and 2013 paragraphs are pretty scary. Your friend takes a personality quiz from a random app developer and then that developer gets access to _your_ personal data. Obviously Zuckerberg doesn't go into detail about what kind of data that was, but if they needed to rein that in in 2014... I imagine it was potentially pretty personal.
1000 word statement. Number of times the word "advertising" was mentioned: 0 Facebook continues to pretend it's business model is unicorns and kittens, not selling user data for money.
It's good that Facebook took steps to secure the platform against third parties crawling the graph and scraping millions of users' personal details, which is what Cambridge Analytica reportedly did, and which was not a violation of their policy at the time. Kudos.
So the consensus seems to be that what Cambridge Analytica did in the Brexit vote and the 2016 US Election was wrong. Now they won't be able to do the same thing via Facebook. But what's keeping Facebook themselves from doing the same thing that Cambridge Analytica did in future elections?
The trusting developers not to sell any data but putting zero safeguards in place to prevent this and extremely punitive repercussions despite being repeatedly told by the public, media, and even high level employees tells me Facebook can't plead ignorance to this and they not only knew this was happening, but they probably intended for it to happen. They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies n…
Why would they intend for it to happen? They didn't make any money off of this exfiltration, CA paid people via Mechanical Turk to install the application so that they could mine their data. Facebook didn't get a dime. In fact, they have a monetary interest in preventing this, because their data is worth something and these guys just got it from free usage of their API. So the insinuation that Facebook wanted this to happen, or looked away because it benefited them, makes zero sense.
What kind of safeguards are you imagining? How do you have 3rd parties interface with Facebook without letting those applications reason about the information within a Facebook account? Tinder is valued at over a billion dollars and it's not possible to use it without a Facebook account-- should Facebook shut that down and ban the entire concept of 3rd party Facebook interaction?
I do not understand the anger. They did nothing wrong. I can't believe that people are legitimately arguing that users shouldn't have a right to expose their information to apps.