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

Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 285 posts

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#191

Post by hodder »

bogomipz wrote: post #87
hodder wrote: post #3

Remember the delete Uber campaign, the Equifax breach, the WFC accounts, the Bank of America suits, the Intel chip vulnerability? The market doesn't. The market has a short memory, and FB is not going anywhere. However, there may be some welcomed changes in data abuse. With that said, I think the stock is a bargain today.

>"The market has a short memory, and FB is not going anywhere." Maybe FB isn't going anywhere but if users and advertisers do you can be sure the market will reflect that.

The point I'm making is that advertisers and users aren't going anywhere.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#192

Post by parthdesai »

wmeredith wrote: post #184
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?

> No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism What Obama did was unethical as far as I'm concerned, as is most modern marketing. (I will say one campaign was selling hope and progressive change while the other was fear mongering and spreading divisiveness. So I think there is a difference.) Having said that, I don't know that…

>Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Ah, the current flavour of the year on reddit when it comes to debates.

It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads. In fact fb personally went on to remove api rate-limiters for one of the apps used by Obama's campaign. Suddenly now that it's someone that left/liberals don't like is in power, these very same practices are being questioned.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#194

Post by nacho2sweet »

hodder wrote: post #3

Remember the delete Uber campaign, the Equifax breach, the WFC accounts, the Bank of America suits, the Intel chip vulnerability? The market doesn't. The market has a short memory, and FB is not going anywhere. However, there may be some welcomed changes in data abuse. With that said, I think the stock is a bargain today.

Uber just had to sell is SE Asia operation. It has a bad rep now lots of people remember. The worst thing that is happening to facebook right now is if someone told me they worked there I would be like "fuck you guys" to their face. They are viewed as the enemy and their staff is feeling that and a lot of good engineers are going to peace.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#195

Post by xienze »

parthdesai wrote: post #192
wmeredith wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism What Obama did was unethical as far as I'm concerned, as is most modern marketing. (I will say one campaign was selling hope and progressive change while the other was fear mongering and spreading divisiveness. So I think there is a difference.) Having said that, I don't know that…

>Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Ah, the current flavour of the year on reddit when it comes to debates. It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads. In fact fb personally went on to remove api rate-limiters for one of the apps used by Obama's campaign. S…

> It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads.

And more specifically, it's calling out the fact that the whole CA thing could have been prevented if, instead of fawning over the Obama campaign's use of targeted advertising in 2012, the media instead collectively asked, "wait, you did _what_ with our data?"

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#196

Post by dragonwriter »

parthdesai wrote: post #192
wmeredith wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism What Obama did was unethical as far as I'm concerned, as is most modern marketing. (I will say one campaign was selling hope and progressive change while the other was fear mongering and spreading divisiveness. So I think there is a difference.) Having said that, I don't know that…

>Because whataboutism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Ah, the current flavour of the year on reddit when it comes to debates. It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy among the reaction of journalists and general public who either ignored or in fact went on to rave about ingenious use of ads. In fact fb personally went on to remove api rate-limiters for one of the apps used by Obama's campaign. S…

> It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy

So, it's exactly Whataboutism: “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, [...]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#197

Post by xienze »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #173
xienze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative? I’d be fine with it, but the first step is admitting that yes, Obama benefited from harvested social media data as well. No one wants to do that, this is all a Trump thing as far as the media, and therefore the general public, is concerned.

No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?

> People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?

Because the forthcoming regulations will inevitably target conservatives if we allow the public discourse on this issue to be dominated by "muh Russia, muh Trump."

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#198

Post by nogbit »

chaoticmass wrote: post #151
fortythirteen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a nickel for every time someone called me paranoid or a conspiracy theorist for mentioning this before last week, I'd have a ton of nickels. I should feel better now that people of aware of the nefariousness of this type of data collection, but I feel worse. The general public is being fed this as "Russia" and "Trump", and not getting the real, horrifying, surveillance state truth of what's going on. I'm les…

If you had a ton of nickels you would have about $9071.85.

And that's much more than the raw materials...

A nickel is 75% copper and 25% nickel.

There are 2000lbs in a ton. That's 1500lbs of copper and 500lbs of nickel.

Scrap pricing is $2.50/lb for copper, $3750. Scrap pricing is $4.83/lb for nickel, $2415.

Total = $6165

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#199

Post by LinuxBender »

sametmax wrote: post #11
hodder wrote: post #3

Remember the delete Uber campaign, the Equifax breach, the WFC accounts, the Bank of America suits, the Intel chip vulnerability? The market doesn't. The market has a short memory, and FB is not going anywhere. However, there may be some welcomed changes in data abuse. With that said, I think the stock is a bargain today.

The short memory is a global things. It's the same with bad movies, lying politician and crazy ex gf/bf. You can get away with a pretty much anything as long as it's legal, not a big symbol, or that you have money to bypass the legal issue: the public won't hold you responsible for long. Here it's even worst, because it's also coupled with a total lack of interest. People mostly don't care about co-creating a society…

John Oliver did a good job of highlighting your point when he interviewed Edward Snowden. People interviewed on the streets about cell phone data collection and it did not concern people at all, that is ... until they found out it could involve pictures of their bf/gf's private bits they sexted back and forth. People said that would make them mad.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#200

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #170
dragonwriter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA, and the politicians of any country in which the USA chooses to meddle in? Probably a level which should induce intense concerns in citizens of those countries if they already had a democracy to protect in the first place. But thanks for the textbook display of Whataboutism.

No, what I've described is a textbook example of blatant hypocrisy. Whataboutism is pointing at an unrelated problem, to divert attention from your problem. "But what about African Americans getting beaten!" to draw attention from bread lines and GULAGs - that sort of thing. This is an incredibly related problem. The two cannot be discussed in isolation. This is quite literally, one of the top countries for 'interfer…

> No, what I've described is a textbook example of blatant hypocrisy.

Yes, the accusation you've launched is one of blatant hypocrisy; the use of such accusations against those raising an issue as distraction technique to draw attention away from the issue raised is exactly the definition of Whataboutism.

Post reply on HN