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

91–100 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#91

Post by tialaramex »

mostlyskeptical wrote: post #31
afarrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software engineers. After all, one could just as easily say…

Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today? Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.

How would bishops not qualify as experts? To be sure I have no interest in the thing they're experts in, but I could say the same for performance art or make-up and presumably there are experts in those fields too.

You can't inherit any of the seats any more, you can inherit a title that means the other Lords could pick you for their chamber without anybody else sending you, this was supposed to be temporary but no other mechanism has ever been approved to replace it. But nobody automatically gets a seat, either they were sent there or they were chosen by the others.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#92

Post by whyever »

jschwartzi wrote: post #73
bigB wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you make someone liable for returning privacy?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#93

Post by throw2016 »

diasp wrote: post #37
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…

In diaspora* you own your data. You don’t sign over rights to a corporation or other interest who could use it. https://diasporafoundation.org

Written in ruby, difficult to install. Have a look at the install requirements.

Like all ruby apps you need a full build environment and tons of dependencies, and if by chance a specific gem fails to compile you are toast in dependency hell.

Given the goal of the project an easier to install and use stack would have helped them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#94

Post by michaelt »

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…

  As for the grandma analogy, you indeed did consent
  to your data being shared
I didn't do the quiz, though - so I didn't get the "Allow Access?" prompt [1] where I consented to share my data with the quiz company.

Is Facebook saying that consent form is irrelevant, and they're entitled to share your data with new companies without showing you that form to get your consent? If so, that seems like the kind of deliberately deceptive approach to that gets people asking for GDPR.

[1] https://jibjabbloggedyblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/34454...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#95

Post by somewhatoff »

mostlyskeptical wrote: post #31
afarrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software engineers. After all, one could just as easily say…

Doesn't the house of Lords have some members appointed by the church, others by birth, women weren't allowed to be Lords spiritual until 2015, and women still aren't allowed to inherit some seats today? Hard to take that seriously in any regard, much less as 'experts'.

The majority (> 80%) are life peers, appointed in theory for being distinguished in their field. So yes, many experts among them. For example: https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-winston/177...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#96

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

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://…

Firefox multi-containers (general): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Facebook container: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#97

Post by kristianc »

simias wrote: post #85
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…

>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. Beyond that and even if…

> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat.

What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Even assuming you have the data, Facebook's value is in the IP and ML algorithms. Facebook sure as hell isn't giving those up.

Even assuming all that, how does it take us further forward than what we have now?

There's a lot of arguments to the effect of 'something needs to be done' but not much detail on what an alternative looks like.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#98

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

simias wrote: post #85
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…

>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. Beyond that and even if…

The concept of regulatory or legislative capture actually a mainstream one; hardly deserves the conspiracy label. Further, the author's claim is well supported by ongoing legislative efforts as well as those efforts of the administrative agencies. There's a legitimate and level-headed reason to have concern.

I'd call it skepticism or pessism at worst.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#99

Post by 089723645897236 »

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…

Just the next first step off the current plateau onto a slope of improvement. FB is garbage pork barrel software anyway. Something cooler is coming along right around the corner. The design space is wide open it's just about who can grab more users. FB UX has never really changed much in ten years and old people use it. Need I say more?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#100

Post by ZenoArrow »

Hasknewbie wrote: post #51
gizzlon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not call this an "article from The Guardian"

Come on, The Guardian is not some Medium blog hoster. You can't say this being in their opinion section means it doesn't count. If you discounted everything tagged as opinion, their front page would have a whole lot of empty spaces.

> "Come on, The Guardian is not some Medium blog hoster."

Why make the distinction? I don't trust the opinions of journalists over the opinions of the general public, both can be informative and both can be misleading.

Post reply on HN