Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 583 posts

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#541

Post by slededit »

vl wrote: post #329
bksenior wrote: post #179

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.

There's a lot of innuendo that he was forced out after the second anti-trust (There was an initial slap on the wrist which he flaunted).

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#542

Post by dredmorbius »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #64

How many shares did Zuckerberg sell just a few days before all this became known? (Yes, I know that such sales are announced publicly and planned in advance).

Fewer than 3% of his announced and ongoing sales plan over the past 3 months. The timeline for that is 18 months

It's a large amount relative to other ongoing insider sales, across all US stockss, but not a deviation from ongoing activities.

Though by September, concerns over privacy and propaganda were well established.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#544

Post by Closey »

nine_k wrote: post #486
eftychis wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit of a nitpick, but the Hackernews post history and comments are publicly available. Most of, if not all, privacy law treats public data differently. Now the majority of Facebook data, which is visible only to a selected group of individuals, can not contradict privacy laws of a country. Despite whatever agreement you signed. Law trumps user agreements. As an extreme example I can sign that I give you the right t…

> I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide This sounds as if nobody can agree to voluntarily take part in a potentially fatal experiment, like testing a potent medicine or be a test pilot. I believe legal provisions exist here.

At least in the UK you can’t sign away your health and safety rights. Even if the job is dangerous the employer still has a duty of care.

Having said this there are some job roles that are excluded from specific parts of the legislation due to their unique nature (e.g. the Army)

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#545

Post by pandapunchpower »

sundvor wrote: post #533
downandout wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One day, the whole farce that is "you agreed to the terms and conditions" deserves to just die. Almost no one reads them, so they should not be enforceable. I mean, as developers we know when a session is established, pages are visited, and can easily see how long they've been on the page. No one can read the typical T&C in 10 seconds .. let alone 1 minute .. especially without even opening the page! So the options s…

>Almost no one reads them, so they should not be enforceable.

It varies depending on where in the world you are but its actually pretty unclear as to whether they are enforceable. Or at least, a specific set of T&Cs with a specific user/customer may be found to be unenforceable for a wide range of reasons.

Of course, the company that puts the T&Cs in front of you isn't going to tell you that.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#546

Post by downandout »

codezero wrote: post #536
downandout wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you playing mental gymnastics here? CA bought the data. CA had nothing to do with the app. They did, they bought the data. I get that they aren’t responsible for the person violating facebook’s rules. I think we already established Facebook is the boogeyman here. But we were comparing the Obama campaign app to an app unrelated to a campaign. In this thread there was the implication “obama did the same thing” and…

Of course there's an equivalence. The exact same thing happened - Obama's campaign received the data of more than 100 million people - about 99.5% of whom didn't explicitly authorize them to receive it. They then used that data in violation of Facebook's Developer TOS. Specifically, the Developer TOS say that you aren't supposed to use the data you receive from the API for any purpose other than the functionality of your app. For example, taking that information and analyzing it to produce campaign strategies and/or using it for targeted political advertising is and was against the Facebook TOS.

How is that not exactly the same thing, just done on a much larger scale by Obama? I get it, this is mostly a lefty crowd here on HN. But I just can't stand hypocrisy on either side. The fact that hundreds of commenters in here want to defend one guy and castigate another for doing the exact same thing based solely on the political affiliation of each is disgusting to me.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#547

Post by codingWithGit »

Why are people surprised by this? Did everyone forget about these early IMs between zuck and a friend:

Zuckerberg: Yea so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask. ‘i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns Friend: what!? how’d you manage that one? Zuckerberg: people just submitted it. i don’t know why. they “trust me”. dumb f*s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5518753/Cambr...

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#549

Post by tim333 »

astro_robot wrote: post #297

I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act l…

"the enormous backlash" in this case is because it looks like the data was used to hack the US election. If it had been used to sell washing powder no one would give a damn.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#550

Post by weaksauce »

vokep wrote: post #517
weaksauce wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you are missing is that there was no cambridge analytica app and nobody opted into it an app that doesn't and didn't exist. They opted into a completely different app that datamined it for completely unrelated purposes and then, much later, sold off to CA which used it to target people. one was on the up and up and one was CA. Again, if trump did what obama did on the level it would have been fair game. the…

The point you're missing is most affected users didn't download anything, and were simply friends of someone who did. (OFA or Krogers app) The distinction you make of OFA being on the up and up and CA not is valid, but doesn't mean suddenly OFA is on a completely different level. There still was a massive amount of data sucked up without consent.

> The distinction you make of OFA being on the up and up and CA not is valid

bullshit. plain and simple. you are falsely making those two equivalent.

Post reply on HN