401–410 of 583 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's as credible as any other legal agreement we have in our society.
Not exactly true. Many things that are important are audited or inspected, not simply signed off on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem like the Obama campaigns got preferential access to Facebook data. Data for even more people than CA got. And perhaps the Clinton campaign did as well, or at least got access to the older data. What distinguishes CA and the Trump campaign is how well the data was used. CA staff apparently just did a better job at using the data to manipulate people. Their canvassing app. Using bots on Facebook and Twitte…
CA staff apparently just did a better job at using the data to manipulate people. I've seen no hard data showing that any of this did Trump any good. Apparently not a single study has been done as to whether people either failed to vote or changed their vote based upon fake news or the use of this data.
I do follow fringes of online anarchism and anomie, and I was surprised to see so much support for Trump, when the polls were showing him so far down. And much of that support was so odd that I thought it ironic. But whatever.
I'd like to see such a study, for sure. But I'm not optimistic. Arguably, many who voted for Trump would be no more forthcoming to researchers than they were to those doing the election polling. There's just too much polarization, I suspect.
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…
This appears to solve the issue of having wide permissions, but it does not do so. In reality, this is an attempt at transferring facebook's risk to shady app developers, while the overall lifecycle for the app won't change.
In essence, this is a do-nothing from the standpoint of app developers who have requested additional permissions. Any app developer who is told they need to undergo an audit, due to transcribing the entire social network, can simply say no and get their account banned. It will likely have no effect, as the account will almost certainly have already been suspended in such a spot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could smart contracts (maybe in addition to a Trusted Execution Environment) be used to enforce these sorts of guarantees?
I'm slightly irritated that there seems not to be a single problem currently that someone would not be proposing cryptocurrency as a solution.
That said, I do agree with your sentiment that the blockchain-as-a-solution space is getting a bit ridiculous. I can't imagine a way to translate this problem into a smart-contract-solvable form.
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 was standard crisis management PR sermon. "learn from this experience", "doesn't change what happened in the past. ", "responsibility", "going forward", "together". You find this same boilerplate from athletes who beat their wife, do drugs, or kill people.
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 was standard crisis management PR sermon. "learn from this experience", "doesn't change what happened in the past. ", "responsibility", "going forward", "together". You find this same boilerplate from athletes who beat their wife, do drugs, or kill people.
Nah. They need to not offer any identifiable information to 3rd parties. Email is fine. Yes, I know can figure out ways to identify an individual by their email, but there's nothing more closely tied to one's identity than their name and face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies not to follow the rules. Offtopic but i cant help it. You get what you measure. Which is why economies that only measure profit optimize for nothing but profit. When a nationstate says "It's illegal to do X" but has mandatory accounting practices that do not measure X but only measure profit, we should not be surprised that companies like Facebook do…
Slightly offtopic too, but I would love to hear suggestions for good books on economics and/or philosophy that would discuss non-monetary profit and values. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/01...
Also check out the MSCI links in my other comments to this thread if you have a chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when Obama committed even worse Facebook privacy violations back in 2008/2012 Obama's campaign said they were scraping for academic purposes, downloaded a bunch of data and then lied about deleting it? There are multiple levels of B.S. when it comes to Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. Only one finds comparison in the 2008 or 2012 races (on either side).
You're framing this improperly. Prior to 2014, anybody could create an app, and if people authorized it to, it could access some friend data. Your comment reads as if they went and made some special arrangement with Facebook and lied to them saying it was for "academic purposes". That just isn't the case. Every single Facebook user with the ability to write code could do this easily and automatically for the 7 years…
you are doing the old classic false equivalence... the deliberate use of an obama sanctioned facebook app that asks you to press a button to share the get out to vote (probably for obama) with their friends is 100% different than Cambridge University creating psyche profiles on people to ostensibly use as a fun way to find out your profile. then to sell that harvested data to a different campaigning firm Cambridge Analytica to use to micro target ads to them for political purposes unbeknownst to them is way different. It's about expectations: one expects it to be used in a political fashion because they opted into it and the other is not expecting it to be used to target themselves and their friends later.
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…
They knew it was illegal What, exactly, are you claiming about this that was “illegal”? When you singup for Facebook, you agree that anything you post might be shared with others on the platform. The Facebook developer platform became so limited in 2014 that most developers (including me) left. There was no point in developing apps for the social graph that had no ability to be use the social graph. But even prior to…