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

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#61

Post by mistermann »

sametmax wrote: post #36
5555624 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out -- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth…

Exactly. Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it. But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors. The root of the problem is that people don't care. I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns, for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened pa…

I feel like I understand this situation fairly well and I still use Facebook, is that a mistake or very bad idea?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#62

Post by degenerate »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #56
netsharc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best part was someone asked if Facebook tracks you even if you've logged out of their website. Holy shit, moment of truth for Zuck, I thought. Nope, he deflected by saying he'll get his team to get back to the senator, and then he spewed jargon ("I know websites use cookies [bla bla] for security"). Oh, he knew the answer, but he couldn't say it in front of all the cameras watching. And of-effing-course he knows…

If under Firefox I also recommend "Decentraleyes" as well. This one loads CDN resources locally instead, so google's overused jQuery CDN is not hit, but a local copy of jQuery is loaded instead. There's another one called "Don't touch my tabs! (rel=noopener)" which I also recommend. As well as using Firefox Containers and some of their plugins, including the one that isolates Facebook for you. Decentraleyes: https://…

Decentraleyes also makes a Chrome and Opera extension:

https://decentraleyes.org/

"Don't touch my tabs" does not exist on Chrome, but some random author created an extension that adds rel=noopener to all _blank links:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/safeclick/npmhmkil...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#63

Post by wila »

gargravarr wrote: post #45
notspanishflu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook tracks everyone, every time. Tracks users and non users. Tracks even people trying to avoid that company. For example, the infamous pixel code. !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e…

I have NoScript set to blacklist any JS from any Facebook domain. Breaking half the internet by default is worth it to neuter this invasive tracking.

NoScript doesn't stop the tracking. See the noscript tags in the html example of the post you replied to.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#64

Post by dingaling »

spacehome wrote: post #5

I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals -- less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it. I'm sure they're…

The more you're free to amble around the Web 'liking' things the more data Facebook can accumulate and the more lucrative you become. Why would they want to restrict that?

As for stifling competitors, Facebook actually benefit from a free-for-all Internet because they can watch trends and identify what needs to be done to capture each successive generation of users, slowly folding them into the big Facebook family.

I don't like the company but I don't think they want to lock the Internet down . I reckon they know that will just lead to something really disruptive and destructive that they won't see coming, like some app that spreads by sideloading.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#65

Post by bigB »

michaelt wrote: post #55
lwansbrough wrote: post #7

I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few error…

I consented to sharing my data with the 3rd party, which was essentially a license for that party to own that data. Imagine you're not a facebook user. When Facebook sucks up your name and phone number and e-mail address out of your buddy's phonebook, along with all the messages and calls between you, have you consented? What about when you get a 'shadow profile' based on tracking buttons and pixels on other websites…

You have consented to your friend having your data in his phonebook...it has nothing to do with Facebook. Its like saying that if your money is in a bank, and that bank gets robbed then the theives are responsible for you getting your money back, not the bank. You as a third party have no recourse on Facebook, but you should against your friend who shared the phonebook with consent

As for the grandma analogy, you indeed did consent to your data being shared, as thats what you agree to as being part of Facebook

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#66

Post by icantdrive55 »

Casseres wrote: post #6
Deimorz wrote: post #4

The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant. It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid…

They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute). The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded. We need more pr…

We do need more technical people running for office, or just those rare, almost extinct people with ethics/morals.

Even if we had technical people asking questions, by the time any bill/regulation gets written those $1200/hr. lawyers/lobbiests have pretty much written the bill, or squashed it.

We don't need experts; we need ethical people running our country.

I'm so disenfranchised, I kinda lost steam, but we should be watching these politicians like we keep track of technology on Hacker News.

There are sites out there that track these politicians, and their voting record, but life seems so hard, I have a hard time looking at the Sellouts; let alone combing over 1000 page bills that I will have real say in.

Actually, I would like to see bills, and TOS have a one page limit, maybe under a certain word count?

I don't know the name for what I'm seeing in politics, and many professions, but my next sentence is what I'm seeing everywhere.

It's make it so seemingly complicated/convoluted the masses will just quietly go away, and we will still be very wealthy. And yes--it's about their money.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#67

Post by [deleted] »

smadge wrote: post #16
lwansbrough wrote: post #7

I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few error…

> I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently "Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist, and former political candidate."

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#68

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

d33 wrote: post #39
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On an unrelated note: I always wonder how people nowadays identify the Internet with WWW. There are so many ways to use the Internet in a way not even remotely related to the current power struggles between greedy businesses and duped users, with incompetent governments meddling in from time to time.

Could you elaborate?

The Internet is the infrastructure plus a set of protocols, with HTTP being just one of them. The protocols the most heavily used tend to be regulated (at least in the EU...), the rest - not so much. So each time I hear someone talking about "the death of the Internet" when they mean regulation related to the WWW, I feel at least we as "hackers" should remember this important distinction because sooner or later, once the web becomes even more regulated, we might want to turn to these remaining protocols in order to communicate more freely, and without the blessing of people who create web browsers (that became so complex you practically can't compete here unless you have tons of money).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#69

Post by sametmax »

mistermann wrote: post #61
sametmax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Facebook is a bad actor. It's good if we can do something about it. But Facebook is not the root of the problem. There will always be bad actors. The root of the problem is that people don't care. I told me friends and relative, again and again, about those issues. I answered any question. I did research, on MY time, to answer their concerns, for them who would not dare spending a second on it. I listened pa…

I feel like I understand this situation fairly well and I still use Facebook, is that a mistake or very bad idea?

I don't know you, I can't tell. I would advice to stop, but facebook is just the tip of the iceberg. It's about doing (as much as it's humanly possible, we are small weak creatures after all) what we can to create a society in which we want to live in.

And for that, before voting, before anything political or big, there is the day to day life. What you you consume. What you communicate. How you behave.

I don't pretend it's easy. I fail at it most of the time, most of the days. I've failed since I was born.

But it's what matters. Not facebook in particular.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#70

Post by pi-squared »

Dowwie wrote: post #42

I have had enough of the latest anti-Facebook vitriole. A lot of people want to see someone, preferably Zuck, drawn and quartered, but I don't. He has accepted responsibility for mistakes and has agreed to do more to protect its users. I believe him. I also believe he has earned a chance to redeem himself, considering the value that Facebook has created for society at little to no cost to its users. Most of the Hacke…

How do I downvote?
Post reply on HN