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

41–50 of 134 posts

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

#41

Post by musage »

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.

> surely it's a widely accepted (and beneficial) practice that employees have special privileges in the apps they build

But it's more specific than that. Imagine using this technique to respond to someone who points out that you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe that it's agreed upon that the existence of toilet paper is a good thing, and that surely they wouldn't prefer the alternative.

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

#42

Post by r00fus »

feelin_googley wrote: post #29

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-…

Wondering what form of payment Sandberg wants. It's not like they give us the option to pay in money.

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

#43

Post by throwaway84742 »

rdl wrote: post #35
saagarjha wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The intent is to ensure full compliance in 2020 elections. I don't see how these actions help Facebook be compliant in any way.

I think he means "towing the (establishment/party) line", not "complying with regulations".

That’s exactly right.

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

#45

Post by JKCalhoun »

supertrope wrote: post #19
alphakappa wrote: post #8

I think it's clear from nearly a decade's worth of Facebook's trysts with privacy issues that it is a company that doesn't have a fundamental stance that's in favor of user privacy. Over and over again it has either intentionally built features that disregard privacy, or put in wrong defaults, or simply brushed off criticisms when others have misused Facebook. At this point we should be asking ourselves why we expect…

I agree that FB has shown time and time again that they consider user privacy a mere road bump. Pervasive dark patterns. I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. Advertising supported websites will always remain loyal to their customers: advertisers. Users are not willing to pay money and requiring a cover charge hurts adoption. What used to be called spyware is now "analytics." People proudly proclai…

> I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. - and - > If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law.

You're almost disagreeing with yourself unless you see a significant difference between regulatory oversight and privacy laws. Both reflect government authority over Facebook (etc.) to protect its citizens.

Myself, I would be happy with either option. We have neither now.

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

#46

Post by jamra »

matte_black wrote: post #5

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

The article specifies that messages older than 2014 were deleted. I read once (can't find the resource now) that Microsoft deletes all chat and email messages older than a certain date.

I think the reason is legal. If ever subpoenaed, providing too much chat info could be potentially damaging. I feel like the insinuation is that something specifically nefarious is going on. They can delete private messages in their own chat program for their executives as much as they want to. I also don't understand why this is considered bad behavior or why people somehow think something nefarious had to occur for them to want to do so. It may just be standard practice at many giant corporations.

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

#47

Post by CSDude »

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.

There was a special South Park episode for that, Zuckerberg shouting "you can't block me" to everyone.

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

#49

Post by marricks »

kerng wrote: post #37
spicyj wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> It wasn't intended. We have been hearing the "it's a bug" a lot lately from Facebook.

Agreed. I think they've pretty much used up their plausible deniability quota for the year, or decade...
Post reply on HN