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

111–120 of 134 posts

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

#111

Post by mschuster91 »

marricks wrote: post #107
mschuster91 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, however, has a massive codebase. Their app is easily one of the biggest Android apps, in fact it's so huge they repeatedly (?) had to hack the Android runtime environment to allow it to run. Their backend and frontend code is likely also a huge monster. In addition they're doing ML/AI stuff which is even harder to debug.

You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button? Bit of a stretch.

> You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button?

I don't imply it, but given how many spam filters these days are realized as more-or-less-black boxes, it is a plausible theory.

In addition, at least for Twitter and FB, there has been suspicion for long time that reports/blocks have faster consequences when many people report/block, as automated filters take over before a human can look at it. I can imagine that there is a filter that gets triggered when a user gets N reports/blocks in M minutes, with e.g. N=100 and M=30, to automatically flag users as potential spammers, unsolicited nude senders or whatever. This had hit Zuckerbergs account, the spam filter blocked his account... and then someone was tasked with preventing this, by disabling the block function based upon certain criteria.

Also, the bug seems to have affected only users blocked by thousands of people. Not exactly your usual testcase, and I don't know if I'd have thought of this scenario when writing the test specifications.

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

#112

Post by exodust »

ryanlol wrote: post #82
exodust wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything. Looks to me like an automated notification triggered by a username change on your account. I don't use Instagram so maybe I'm missing something, but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert this change".

>Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything. Are you suggesting that Mat Henley from Uber hacked me (or hired someone to hack me?), or that I myself gave up the name and am telling lies now? I think both of those sound tremendously unlikely. I am 100% sure that neither of these accounts were compromised. >but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert th…

I'm not suggesting anything. All I'm going off is the screenshots you provided which you described as "Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names".

I don't know what you're suggesting either... that Henley picked up phone to Instagram and said "I want @Mat, give it to me"?? Maybe ask Henley directly, send him a message and ask for your name back. If I were you I'd be pissed off and wouldn't let it slide.

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

#114

Post by kerng »

mschuster91 wrote: post #111
marricks wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button? Bit of a stretch.

> You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button? I don't imply it, but given how many spam filters these days are realized as more-or-less-black boxes, it is a plausible theory. In addition, at least for Twitter and FB, there has been suspicion for long time that reports/blocks have faster consequences when many people report/block, as automated filters take over before a human can look at it. I…

You are assuming that there are test specifications - in many organizations thorough testing before shipping is a thing of the past. A/B and testing in production is the new norm unfortunately. That's probably part of the problem. Since the users are the product being tested it makes even sense.

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

#116

Post by alwayseasy »

ryanlol wrote: post #82
exodust wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything. Looks to me like an automated notification triggered by a username change on your account. I don't use Instagram so maybe I'm missing something, but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert this change".

>Your screenshots show no evidence of "facebook staff" doing anything. Are you suggesting that Mat Henley from Uber hacked me (or hired someone to hack me?), or that I myself gave up the name and am telling lies now? I think both of those sound tremendously unlikely. I am 100% sure that neither of these accounts were compromised. >but you should have done as it said and changed your password after clicking "revert th…

Especially when we know Mat Henley is a former Facebook employee.

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

#117

Post by 908087 »

rootlocus wrote: post #100
908087 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Signal.

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

#118

Post by heedlessly3 »

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.

He doesn't need to find a replacement CEO.

Sheryl Sandberg already runs most of his business for him as COO

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

#120

Post by supertrope »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #45
supertrope wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be clearer I was contrasting regulations on just Facebook or just social media companies and an informed consent opt-in privacy law covering all personal information. Sector specific privacy laws already prohibit your phone company and bank from using your logs for targeted advertising or directly selling it to the highest bidder. When there is a criminal or civil liability to hoarding personal information that can be abused internally or leaked, companies will think twice before setting up such databases. Of course there will still be the Ubers and Equifaxes of the world but it will shift the burden to the data brokers who will no longer be able to fall back to noting that compiling scarily detailed dossiers is legal.
Post reply on HN