Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#441

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 8:46 AM UTC

HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #398

rootusrootus wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends. The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly e…

9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.

Especially when the alternative is "free"

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#442

Post by singingboyo » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 8:47 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #155

sincerely wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).

I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the real motivations of the people writ…

Of course there wouldn't be as much fuss about it. Trump losing the election would imply that the attempts at influencing people were unsuccessful. At a glance, that would indicate that regulation is unnecessary (though detailed analysis could show otherwise).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#443

Post by borski » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 8:58 AM UTC

suprfnk wrote: post #440

dschuetz wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe so, yes. Why else would they be so successful? Any other attempt to replace Facebook (or even copy it) as a social network had failed or remained insignificant. Why? I think, because they cannot agree on how to finance their services on large scales. Facebook has vast monetary resources and they know to manage them. I imagine the story of Facebook as this. In the beginning Facebook was just another campus p…

> Why else would they be so successful? Any other attempt to replace Facebook (or even copy it) as a social network had failed or remained insignificant. Would this not be adequately explained by the first movers advantage (or maybe not the very first, but very early), coupled with the network effect?

No, as Facebook was not first. Myspace was a thing, and before that Friendster.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#444

Post by peter303 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:01 AM UTC

The idiot should have used a lawyer to OK every answer. He made several huge legal errors by accepting full responsibility for content, always debatable for a protected media carrier.

I am indifferent to whether Facebook survives, since I saw the poor privacy control since the beginning. High flying social competitors like GeoCities and MySpace died in the past. This could happen to Facebook too.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#445

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:02 AM UTC

zamalek wrote: post #253

munk-a wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good friend of mine once told me to "stop apologizing and fix it" when I was in middle school. Reflecting on that made me realize how empty apologies can be and spurred some self improvement. It's not as if Zuckerberg could've shown up today with a patch file and gone through how he hacked the problems out of the platform last night with some red bull. But the apologies need to be seen as empty and we've all got to…

I agree completely - this is why my opinion of Facebook hasn't yet changed. However, you have to admit fault before you can resolve it. The alternative would have been "we are giving users a sense of pride and accomplishment with their likes."

Indeed. "fixing it" isn't an alternative to admitting fault. It's just the next step.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#446

Post by chopin » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:13 AM UTC

bhhaskin wrote: post #325

Silhouette wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the sort of word game that surely wouldn't last ten seconds in any courtroom. "Did you delete the data or not?" "Yes, we deleted the data." "Then how is it that we're all sitting here looking at it?" This modern fiction of pretending something is deleted just because someone set a flag called "deleted" has about as much relevance to actual deletion as the evil bit in an IPv4 header has to actual Internet secu…

But the reality is that is exactly what is happening when you delete a file. It sets a flag as deleted in the file system. The data reminds there until overwritten. Computers have worked this way since forever. Also if you look at the definition of delete it matches this. To remove by striking out or canceling, not to remove all remove all traces.

But the file system overrides the (former) file content eventually. You don't have a guarantee you can retrieve the content anymore. You'd need to use forensic tools for that anyway. I think any jury can understand this. Setting a flag in a database column is a big difference, as the data never becomes purged eventually.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#447

Post by test1235 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:33 AM UTC

nfoz wrote: post #409

jakebasile wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's trumpeted from the rooftops here that if you don't pay you are the product. What is the alternative if not charge the user for the service?

Paying for the service doesn't automatically mean you aren't the product.

Also, not paying for a service doesn't mean you're the product e.g. open source software

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#448

Post by mullsork » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:37 AM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #427

vlovich123 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While a website may be able to track you via IP address within itself, it can't track you across websites like FB can since their code gets injected to a lot of websites (which they do use to track you when you're signed in - my guess would be the same holds for when you're logged out).

They need the website to add their code in order to track you. The website could just send the IPs as easily.

Just an IP is presumably not enough to fingerprint someone.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#449

Post by superjambo » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 9:43 AM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #439

cygx wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a reference to a study where they had an algorithm fed with a certain number of facebook likes compete against personal acquaintances (including spouses) in predictig personality traits. The algorithm won: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/07/1418680112

The parent's argument assumes though that this kind of accuracy is achieved regularly and consistently today, which is way different than the report of one study.

It doesn't need to be consistent in order to be horrifying.

The fear is that big data tech will become radioactive.

Imagine a bus full of school kids crashes because the driver was a recovering alcoholic who fell off the wagon.

Some smart SV engineer realizes their tech spotted the driver visited AA groups regularly & his wife just left him. The algorithm knows this data makes him an excellent target audience for _new alco-energy drink!_.

It doesn't really matter if the technology is even capable of that yet, what matters is that this is the sort of outcome that adtech engineers are trying to create.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#450

Post by chatmasta » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 10:01 AM UTC

badminton1 wrote: post #362

badminton1 wrote: post #264

Some months ago I saw an job search website ad. I clicked "Why are you seeing this ad?", and it said it was targeted towards users between 24 and 37. How is this not enabling age discrimination? Connecting people can be a good thing, but connecting people through discrimination is a completely different thing.

Some people have reported seeing real estate apps targeting a specific race, and noticed this using the "Why are you seeing this ad?" functionality as well. There's legislation that prohibits this kind of discrimination.

Is it discrimination if the company still accepts and fairly considers applications from other races? Or if the real estate agent will happily sell a house to anyone no matter their race? Whom you advertise to is not the same as from whom you accept applications.

Even if an ad targeted “everyone,” it would still only be targeted to everyone on Facebook, so non-Facebook users could not see it. Is that discriminating against the protected classes that tend not to use Facebook?

At a certain point you’re eliminating the ability to advertise at all. As long as the job/house listing is equally accessible to all applicants, there is no discrimination. The only variable advertising changes is the visibility of the listing. Visibility and accessibility are not measured in the same way.

It is a very interesting discussion though.