Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

facebook.com

411–420 of 583 posts

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#411
I would like to also hear an explanation of how the Obama campaign apparently grabbed data in 2012.

- how was this episode discovered? what was FB's initial reaction and can it be justified?

- are the allegations true? including the one that FB employees collaborated on it. Silence on it only deepens suspicions.

- was this done in a similar way (3rd party dev, etc)? If not, how was it done?

- who were the actors in that episode? What was the actions taken then?

- what about the pedigree of those who rightly raised the issue in the 'Cambridge Analytica' episode? Did they not have the information for the 2012 episode? How did they find this out?

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#412
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are selling market making for an ad market. Any market is a trade of both value and information.

I disagree, because Facebook's incentive is to keep all their information to themselves in an advertising business. If their the only ones who have it, then in order to get the same form of targeting you have to pay them.

It’s not possible for them to keep targeting data to themselves.

Targeted campaign products leak data about the user’s targeted attributes by their very nature.

If you want FB’s targeting data, simply buy targeted campaigns and associate the target attributes with the users who click once they are on your server. At scale, the targeting data is transparent.

Big ad analytics companies and ad exchanges can and do basically sit in the center of many campaigns and slurp up the targeting data which is naturally leaking from FB by virtue of their selling capaigns based on those targets.

Whether they want to or not, they are selling their data.

Edit: Care to reply instead of downvote? Is everything above not true?

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#413
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebooks real existential threat is just that . He thinks that having everything he wants now is correlated to the future. He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Goo…

>He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. It seems that it worker out for Bill Gates pretty well.

Yea, the Microsoft anti-trust years would love to have a sit down with you.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the GAAP has all but ensured that this happens. You want companies to have values? Then measure values! (alongside profit, not inspite of) How do you record company/moral values into Books of Accounts? How does one audit those morals? What category do you assign it under: Asset, Liability or Owners Equity? And moreover, what would happen if morals change and some are deemed obsolete? Also, if you start to measure c…

Aren't intangibles exactly that, though perhaps a little broader than specifying particular moral behaviours? Goodwill, Brand (which contains value statements), IP, etc, they're given financial value. Perhaps these don't influence shareholder/public actions as much as they could, but the measures are there at least.

> Aren't intangibles exactly that, though perhaps a little broader than specifying particular moral behaviours?

Intangibles can be bought and sold as they aren't attached to anything emotional. Moral behaviours/values, if embedded into the books, have to be through a transaction. How do you transact moral behaviour/values? That is the question I have.

> Goodwill, Brand (which contains value statements), IP, etc, they're given financial value. Perhaps these don't influence shareholder/public actions as much as they could, but the measures are there at least.

Accounting principles state that for anything to be recorded in the Books a prior transaction should exist. Brand and Goodwill, by accounting principles, are only recorded after they are transacted the first time. What that means is: Say you start an enterprise. The enterprise over its lifetime acquires a Brand value. However, you cannot record that Brand value until the enterprise is sold to another entity. Only in that scenario, can the buying entity record it into it's Books as Asset.

EDIT: IP, Copyright or Patents on the other hand can be recorded as Intangibles because you "bought" it from an issuing entity (the Government or any other body which is issuing you the certifications in exchange for a monetary value). Hence a transaction exists prior to the recordation in the Books which has valued the asset.

EDIT: To explain better: The reason you cannot record a Brand value into the Books until it's either sold/acquired is primarily because there is no way to gauge the value of Brand/Goodwill. I may consider my enterprise Brand value to be a million dollars. But you might consider it to have no value. Unless a transaction occurs, a value cannot be arrived at as it inherently has no value. Hence the recordation in the Books happens only and only after a transaction takes place.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> According to a Time magazine account just after Obama won re-election, "the team blitzed the supporters who had signed up for the app with requests to share specific online content with specific friends simply by clicking a button." 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 obam…

The Obama app accessed the data of roughly 189 million friend profiles that didn't authorize the app (it only had about 1 million installs). About 95 million of those people would have consciously objected to helping the Obama campaign had they known about it. But all of their data was collected and used by the Obama campaign to target political ads and formulate campaign strategy anyway, even though none of those 189 million people expected or specifically authorized their data "to be used in political fashion".

So how is that a false equivalence?

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I want is Mark Zuckerberg to say is "this isn't a community, we're a multi billion dollar company. We have a pretty cool website where you can do a bunch of stuff, and we mine your personal data (and sell it) to pay for it. Sound like a good deal? We think so." But no, we've got to pretend Facebook is a touchy-feely community. I get the feeling that Facebook is ashamed of the way they make their billions.

Why do you have such a hard time believing that he is well intended? You seem lost in a false narrative that he is out to get you :( I challenge you to rethink your position assuming he means well...just for the fun of it...and share with us what your conclusion would be

You're talking about the same guy who said:

> Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

> Zuck: Just ask

> Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

> [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

> Zuck: People just submitted it.

> Zuck: I don't know why.

> Zuck: They "trust me"

> Zuck: Dumb fucks

If you actually do think he means well, you're a very nice person. Or incredibly delusional.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Beacon formed part of Facebook's advertisement system that sent data from external websites to Facebook, for the purpose of allowing targeted advertisements and allowing users to share their activities with their friends. Beacon would report to Facebook on its members' activities on third-party sites that also participate with Beacon. These activities would be published to users' News Feed. This would occur even whe…

Was this the thing that would put up a notification on your Facebook profile that you just bought a dildo from Amazon (for instance)?

I really hate that. It's a specific deal between Facebook and Amazon. You can't "block" it. Amazon willingly send your purchase history to Facebook.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#420

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…

> the GAAP has all but ensured that this happens. You want companies to have values? Then measure values! (alongside profit, not inspite of) How do you record company/moral values into Books of Accounts? How does one audit those morals? What category do you assign it under: Asset, Liability or Owners Equity? And moreover, what would happen if morals change and some are deemed obsolete? Also, if you start to measure c…

The parent comment said "Then measure values!", but didn't specify how. That was left as an exercise for the reader to imagine.

Mashing value metrics in to accounting practices seems problematic at best.

On the whole I think it's a tricky subject because we want to be careful not to stifle innovation, and sometimes problems only become evident after quite a few pavers have been laid on the road of good intentions.

Post reply on HN