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

71–80 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#71

Post by austenallred »

kaitnieks wrote: post #38

Maybe I'm too cynical about politics, but it appears to me that the point of these hearings is not to solve or investigate anything, it's to generate soundbites that voters or potential future voters would like. It's not even that important what the reply is, as long as the politician asks the hard question and demonstrates his concern, and if it makes the news & press, that's victory for them.

Note how many of the senators who voted to expand surveillance programs and the NSA became suddenly very concerned for privacy. They just wanted to try and dunk on him and get in a sound bite.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#73

Post by jschwartzi »

bigB wrote: post #65
michaelt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ind…

The problem is that the world you're arguing for is one where I get all my friends to sign a contract before I give them my personal details. Nobody wants that, not even in exchange for whatever Facebook provides. It's a perverse expectation rooted in some kind of idea that all human exchange must be regulated by some contract.

And thieves are indeed liable for returning money.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#74

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

cdolan wrote: post #50
nerdponx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop using Ghostery and switch to uBlock Origin.

Why

Pretty sure they got sold or something a bit back. There was also this: https://lifehacker.com/ad-blocking-extension-ghostery-actual...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#75

Post by [deleted] »

pi-squared wrote: post #70
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?

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#76

Post by loup-vaillant »

golergka wrote: post #44
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.

How many people use it this way? Internet without people doesn't have much use. Internet with only geeks on is better, but still pretty limited.

I operate my own mail server. To send and receive email, I use the imap and smtp protocols. No need for the web there, unlike Gmail captives.

There was this thing called "newsgroups", some day before my time. Wasn't the web.

IRC is still a thing. So is XMPP. Isn't the web.

I'm not sure what you mean by "internet without people". There are plenty of people outside of HTTP.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#78

Post by loup-vaillant »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #68
d33 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a flip side to this: in part thanks to this lack of regulation, anything outside the popular protocols tend to be blocked in an increasing number of network.

I can see this becoming so bad that the only way to communicate freely would be to tunnel our stuff through TLS on port 443. (That is, doing what looks like HTTPS.)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#79

Post by extra88 »

pas wrote: post #53
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…

> less freedom on the Internet The regulations should be non-technology specific. Simply it should provide rules about customer/user data. Even if I use pigeons. (But not RFC 1149.)

Some regulatory requirements are manageable by a large, established company but not a startup. For instance, requiring human review of user content is going to be tough in a high growth phase.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#80

Post by simias »

pi-squared wrote: post #70
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?

You need to reach a certain karma threshold, I don't remember the exact value.
Post reply on HN