Didnt both the GOP and DNC suck down user data in 2010-2012?
Way before the rule changes.
Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
431–440 of 583 posts
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 incr…
Stop repeating this meme. It's not productive and doesn't help drive the conversation forward in any way.
He said those things when he was 19 years old and Facebook was still a random side project in college.
And yes people were indeed "dumb fucks" to give a random college kid with a side project their personal information. If you went around Walmart and asked people for their SSNs with no value proposition, then they would indeed be dumb as well.
The $400 billion company that Facebook is now and the growth a person goes through over decades of being a CEO and managing people is significant.
For you to bring up something the guy said when he was a kid is disingenuous and does more to harm any point you may have had than help it.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a very hard time imagining Zuckerberg actually writing these words, it just felt too carefully crafted and full of standard PR tropes. The CNN interview should be interesting, then we can hear the actual words from his mouth.
The words he's been rehearsing in hours of mock interviews with the same PR hacks, for the last couple days.
I imagine he'll be answering questions provided to CNN by the Facebook PR team.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 18…
> That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists.
permission for one.
> The campaign called this effort targeted sharing. And in those final weeks of the campaign, 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. More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts, asking their friends to register to vote, give money, vote or look at a video designed to change their mind.
intent and deliberate action up front by the user of the facebook app for two not some shady psych profile that gets sold later and used behind the scenes to target them without any link to the campaign. that's absolutely a false equivalence.
Also, that number 189 million is absolutely likely to be way too high and is likely bullshit. Say I have 190 friends with a significant overlap with say 50 friends who all know each other and are likely also friends with each other. it simply doesn't follow that every single friend has 190 unique friends to get a graph of that size even though the average across all users might be 190 friends. have a few more of those for different groups (business, whatever) and you have a much lower number. coupled with the fact that you have no idea what the average number of friends the people that opt into that app have if you are just comparing it to the overall average number of friends for the entire set of facebook users you possibly have a lower number still.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#4352010: Zuckerberg says privacy is no longer a "social norm" 2018: Oops https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6966628/Face...
He honestly isn't wrong. People use Google and Facebook everyday for free in exchange for their privacy and they are ok with that. You can ask most people and they'll say they didn't really care about Snowden's leaks. They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision (I don't care about the inefficacy of it). Privacy really is a social norm of the past.
I understand your intention and don't mean to criticize, but please consider avoiding the term 'free software' when referring to businesses like Facebook and Google.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 18…
I'm not taking sides here, and I could be very wrong – my assumption here is that Cambridge didn't have a "Trump Campaign App" they had some other app, then sold that data to a third party. Obama's campaign had a "campaign" app, and used the data collected from that app. We can all argue about whether facebook should even allow apps the kind of data they do, but the crux of what CA did was to re-sell data they collec…
the crux of what CA did was to re-sell data they collected from Facebook, right?
No. An independent developer had an app many years ago, recorded data from that app, and then sold that data to CA years after the fact. That developer did in fact violate Facebook's developer platform policies by selling the data, but CA had nothing to do with the app or what was represented to the people using it when they installed it.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#437"... we immediately banned Kogan's app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. They provided these certifications." How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..?
Fwiw, Cambridge Analytica still maintains that they don't have any copy of FB data and are open to do a forensic test by a FB appointed team.
A “forensic test” to check that they didn’t copy and hang on to some data in 2013 ... well I’m reassured.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
So FB opened up their platform to 3rd party Devs in 2007 and this CA incident happened in 2013. FB changed their policy of not allowing broad data access to these Devs in 2014. So my question is: Why they admit that they'd audit the pre-2014 apps now when NYT and Guardian/Observer broke the news? And what policy is in place now that makes sure that these 3rd party Devs won't sell whatever info they do collect as per…
Why they admit that they'd audit the pre-2014 apps now when NYT and Guardian/Observer broke the news? I don't know, they should have done it when Obama committed even worse Facebook privacy violations back in 2008/2012. I guess when you have Chris Hughes working for your campaign, it's easier to keep things under wraps and spin what does become public as a positive. It was only after Trump won that this kind of use o…
> I don't know, they should have done it when Obama committed even worse Facebook privacy violations back in 2008/2012.
Citation needed. Everything I've seen indicates Obama's campaign didn't violate the rules: https://twitter.com/mbsimon/status/975231597183229953
"I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work."
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty sure that everyone and everyone's mum knew that Facebook was doing stuff like this. "Everyone" knew Facebook was gathering tons of data on its users and everyone else, but we didn't understand many of the implications until now. People assumed it was just useful for banner-ad type stuff. There are probably even more implications of this data collection that we have still yet to discover.
That's BS. The Obama campaign bragged about using Facebook data and was praised for it.
No it isn't. I only learned of the political implications of FB data during this election cycle. It's gotten a lot more headlines, and the stories have been much more explicit about the implications. So we've proved "everyone" didn't understand the full implications until now.
Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 18…
You're completely wrong about this:
https://twitter.com/mbsimon/status/975231597183229953
"I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work."