Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#2Not sure about 'surprise'
the Corbett Report is pointing out it covered all this in detail a year ago
along with lots of other similar commentary online over the last couple of years...
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#3The only real solutions are open source federated decentralized services.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#4"Facebook thinks we're idiots"
To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand.
Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as usual as this fades out over the next 1-2 months.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#5Not sure about 'surprise' the Corbett Report is pointing out it covered all this in detail a year ago https://youtu.be/w7n9FI6C5vw along with lots of other similar commentary online over the last couple of years...
> Not sure about 'surprise'
That this was possible and happening was well known in Silicon Valley. What has changed is (a) Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election made the issue relatable and (b) Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#6Not sure about 'surprise' the Corbett Report is pointing out it covered all this in detail a year ago https://youtu.be/w7n9FI6C5vw along with lots of other similar commentary online over the last couple of years...
> Not sure about 'surprise' That this was possible and happening was well known in Silicon Valley. What has changed is (a) Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election made the issue relatable and (b) Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up
I agree that execs probably took too long to make a statement, but out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what execs should've done instead, or are you of the opinion that there's really nothing they could've done differently?
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#7"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…
> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic
I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1].
> Shareholders know this
Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2].
[1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p...
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#8"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…
Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide.
Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#9"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…
Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".
But privacy and security are not "cool", and never will be.
People like transparency, people are drawn to dangerous things. Hiding shit behind closed doors or being super paranoid is not cool, and will not get you fans.
The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".
But privacy and security are not "cool", and never will be. People like transparency, people are drawn to dangerous things. Hiding shit behind closed doors or being super paranoid is not cool, and will not get you fans. The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. S…
> The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance.
Well, yeah, maybe, but the Kardashians certainly fall into that group, and there is a cult of narcissism that would find the idea fashionable if given direction from actually famous individuals.
That said, I think you're right that very few will ever give a shit about privacy and I'm not terribly convinced they are wrong, since very few have anything interesting or meaningfully criminal/subversive going on.