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

91–100 of 134 posts

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

#91

Post by erric »

saalweachter wrote: post #87
colordrops wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. That's an extremely insightful statement but unfortunately also describes the DNC and RNC, which are already in control of the US.

The DNC/RNC really only matter for Presidential politics. The State and county committees are what matter for lower elections, including House and Senate elections.

I only count two seats which are not either (D) or (R). I’d say the DNC and RNC still matter quite a bit for these elections.

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

#92

Post by maxerickson »

colordrops wrote: post #60
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…

> We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. That's an extremely insightful statement but unfortunately also describes the DNC and RNC, which are already in control of the US.

Yes, as citizens we should do as much as possible to diminish their power.

I've posted lots of comments about removing parties from the ballot process. Let them endorse a candidate, whatever, but private organizations shouldn't have any direct role in determining which names appear on ballots.

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

#93

Post by vageli »

mcny wrote: post #86
JKCalhoun wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't always want privacy though. Is privacy at odds with accountability? We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy. We have a lot of information that some people know but most do not. We have to think carefully what is private and what isn't. For example, your employer knows how much th…

There are varying degrees of privacy. Just because you share some information with some people doesn't mean you want to share all information with everyone.

That said, I agree that opaque salaries hurt only the employee as the other side of the market (employer) has full knowledge.

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

#94

Post by ryanlol »

7Z7 wrote: post #88
ryanlol wrote: post #25

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 employee…

How recently?

Around 20:00 (PDT) on Wednesday, April 04 2018.

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

#95

Post by zimpenfish »

erric wrote: post #91
saalweachter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DNC/RNC really only matter for Presidential politics. The State and county committees are what matter for lower elections, including House and Senate elections.

I only count two seats which are not either (D) or (R). I’d say the DNC and RNC still matter quite a bit for these elections.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/17/1653154/-DNC-DCCC...

The DCCC handles House elections and is nothing to do with the DNC. DSCC is the same for the Senate.

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

#96

Post by needcaffeine »

aerique wrote: post #84
simias wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook won't buy IRC or any distributed open source decentralized protocol. Chats, newsgroups, email... The net used to be a lot more open and decentralized that it is now, maybe it's time to go back a couple of decades?

Won't they do with decentralized chat what they did with XMPP?: integrate support for a while to keep users from getting away and then drop that support again when the time is right?

Like...Slack.

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

#97

Post by 908087 »

rootlocus wrote: post #70
jamesmiller5 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I need is a better chat app, that Facebook won't buy. I can now text, voice record, send photos/selfies and video messages easily to my social circles. Connecting to second degree connections is fast and everyone I know has an account. I want to leave Facebook but I can't give up such an amazing chat experience that keeps me connected to my family and close friends. Even if I got my immediate family to use a diff…

How about: https://telegram.org/

How about we stop suggesting a messaging app that styles itself as privacy-oriented and encrypted despite not being end to end encrypted by default, and using questionable encryption even for the optional E2E functionality that nobody uses?

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

#98

Post by joering2 »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #90
luckydata wrote: post #44

Facebook exists for one reason only, Mark's desire to be rich. Everything else is completely opportunistic. If you see it through that lens, everything they've ever done makes complete sense.

If that was the case, he'd find a replacement CEO, sell his shares and be done with it. He's already rich enough to be have to lift another finger in the next 10 lifetimes.

I made it from few thousands per month of salary to my first sell for $1MM in 2004. I thought I was rich. Then I start meeting people much richer. My last exit was with $17MM check. Guess what - I still feel I'm poor.

The point being, rich people don't look down - they look higher at people who are richER or wealthy (few people in America are such as Buffet, Gates, etc). I assure you Zuck doesn't sell his stock to be rich and "done with it"; he's looking at Bezos fortune and that's where he's aiming at. Greed never stops and there is always something/someone bigger to look at.

Fun fact: I know a buddy in Bezos close circles and he told me Bezos is not looking up at anyone but keeps growing like crazy NOT TO lose his position. So there you have it; always a reason to get up just another morning and make just another buck.

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

#99

Post by joering2 »

rimliu wrote: post #72
chx wrote: post #32

The problem with any regulation curtailing Facebook is it's practically guaranteed to hurt Internet freedoms. A lot.

How? By this measure GDPR should also hurt internet, no?

It is, but in most part it is hurting spammers and shady ESPs :)

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

#100

Post by rootlocus »

908087 wrote: post #97
rootlocus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about: https://telegram.org/

How about we stop suggesting a messaging app that styles itself as privacy-oriented and encrypted despite not being end to end encrypted by default, and using questionable encryption even for the optional E2E functionality that nobody uses?

E2E encryption enabled by default wasn't in the OP request. But instead of being snarky, how about you suggest a better alternative?
Post reply on HN