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

Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#21

Post by vages »

haydenlee wrote: post #14
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behaviour described in this article implies a culture willing to look one way for users and another way for themselves. That’s pertinent less to users and more to lawyers and lawmakers.

I dislike FB as much as the next dev here, but surely it's a widely accepted (and beneficial) practice that employees have special privileges in the apps they build. Imagine using this argument to say that Facebook couldn't shut down a page/group/account.

Yes, it is technically the same abilities being used. The reaction comes because of how they're used: to indiscriminately delete old messages that may potentially be harmful to themselves while not offering the same options to its users.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#22

Post by jerkstate »

CodeMage wrote: post #11
everdev wrote: post #2

I'm no fan of Facebook and deleted my account years ago, but the flood of articles like these that are barely embarrassing since the major Cambridge Analytic embarrassment feels more like an agenda or piling on than newsworthy items. There are many reasons to reduce or eliminate your time on FB, but this isn't one of them.

On the contrary, everyone's willingness to accept this kind of behavior as normal indicates how far the Overton window has moved when it comes to the trustworthiness of our digital services. We need a collective effort to shift things back where they belong.

I disagree, privacy-conscious people have been warning that Facebook has been doing these things since forever, so people (especially here on HN) can't claim that they didn't know these things were going on. This is just the same old story: people being upset about the consequences of what they were warned about many many times.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#23

Post by supertrope »

gaius wrote: post #12
matte_black wrote: post #5

Thing is a nothingburger. Do people really believe messages can’t be deleted no matter what?

It’s difficult to retract a message SMTP’d to my server then POP3 download to my desktop computer Sometimes the old protocols are the best

Delete buttons cut both ways. You can yank content but so can others. Of course you don't have assurance it's been truly deleted and someone could save a copy. Even before I quit it was hard to tell if the submitter wanted it gone or if it was a technical glitch, censorship, or displaced by ads.

If you want to be cynical it's kind of like the memory hole in 1984. More charitably, it's not that different from broken links (except that broken links leave a trace).

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#24

Post by jerkstate »

gaius wrote: post #12
matte_black wrote: post #5

Thing is a nothingburger. Do people really believe messages can’t be deleted no matter what?

It’s difficult to retract a message SMTP’d to my server then POP3 download to my desktop computer Sometimes the old protocols are the best

"the cloud is just someone else's computer"

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#25

Post by ryanlol »

I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice.

Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber.

Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names:

https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png (The revert button does nothing, just offers to change your password)

It seems like FB employees do not need a particularly good reason to go play around with admin tools editing user accounts. If they can edit users accounts this lightly, what does it take for them to look through you private posts or messages?

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#27

Post by spicyj »

saagarjha wrote: post #10

> Zuckerberg’s profile doesn’t show a button to add him as a friend on desktop, and the button is grayed out and disabled on mobile. Of course he has special rules for himself. Fun fact: you cannot block Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. It just won't let you.

> Fun fact: you cannot block Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. It just won't let you.

This was fixed months ago (and was a technical problem that affected anyone blocked by many thousands of people, not just him). It wasn't intended.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#28

Post by spicyj »

fowl2 wrote: post #20
saagarjha wrote: post #10

> Zuckerberg’s profile doesn’t show a button to add him as a friend on desktop, and the button is grayed out and disabled on mobile. Of course he has special rules for himself. Fun fact: you cannot block Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. It just won't let you.

Everyone can controls who can send them friend requests.

Most users can only set it as restrictive as "friends of friends", but if you have 10k+ followers or are verified then you can restrict it further.

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#29

Post by feelin_googley »

Apparently Sandberg went on a press tour giving five or so interviews, apologising according to script in each one.

But apparently she veered a bit off script in one of them, on the Today show.

She said "our service depends on your data."

Apparently she said something like "If they want to opt out of sharing all their data, they will have to pay for it."

Source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheryl-sandberg-sticks-to-scrip...

Re: Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes

#30

Post by chris_wot »

everdev wrote: post #2

I'm no fan of Facebook and deleted my account years ago, but the flood of articles like these that are barely embarrassing since the major Cambridge Analytic embarrassment feels more like an agenda or piling on than newsworthy items. There are many reasons to reduce or eliminate your time on FB, but this isn't one of them.

Hardly, if we cannot retract our messages from Facebook, neither should they!
Post reply on HN