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

141–150 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#141

Post by mmd45 »

manjushri wrote: post #138
mmd45 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of discovery would you like to make? It seems to me that whatever fb has they control and do with as they please and have the money for lobbyists and lawyers to corporate-splain their actions away and pay the occasional fine (cost of doing business). I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.

>I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech. The vast majority of FB users don't understand tech, and that's the root problem. These hearings aren't for technical minded people. If they were, there would be technical minded people asking the questions.

But still, what type of "discovery" is being hoped for?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#143

Post by mattnewton »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #126
smaddox wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think large companies are more capable of developing reliable, secure software?

Huh? Isn't the point of this whole comment chain that large companies are able to comply with regulations that protect user safety that small companies might not be able to? In that case it's self evident why a large company is better able to protect user safety.

That’s assuming the regulations work instead of just throw obstacles in the way of new companies.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#144

Post by wyck »

extra88 wrote: post #79
pas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

America needs to look at citizen privacy laws like they have in Canada and the E.U.

For example if I log into the Facebook business manager for a company I can see tons of data on Americans but not nearly as many details for Canadians, it's because of these laws. The new E.U. laws are even stricter with regards to personal data and how it's used, no matter who you are.

Why there is no demand for this level of protection in the States by its citizens and representatives is crazy.

Anyone who expects goodwill from Facebook, Google or any company is seriously misguided. Privacy laws need to be in place, actual laws that are bound my the federal legal system, and not just state regulations.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#145

Post by nv-vn »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #102
kristianc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

> 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? Making scraping of your personal data a statutory right, including the building and distributing of tools for it. No need to force FB to publish anything, just prev…

But then this brings us back to square 1, "tools" can just scrape user messages/content without authorization and then use that to collect data on those users. If the whole point is to solve the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, this is just going to make the situation 10x worse.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#147

Post by [deleted] »

5555624 wrote: post #10
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#148

Post by extra88 »

ivanhoe wrote: post #106
extra88 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's exactly how it works in many other lines of businesses, e.g. in construction. Many small companies can't provide compliance with the required codes, so they're forced to work their way up the ladder slowly or create joint ventures. Sure, that way you probably can't become a billionaire in a few years, but also bridges fall down less often because of it, so in the end it's not necessarily a bad thing for th…

Software and construction are not analogous. For one thing, no one is talking about regulation of social media that has to do with life and death matters. Are you proposing that no one should be allowed to create a video sharing platform unless they can prove in advance they can actively monitor all uploaded content, regardless of how popular they get?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#149

Post by Shivetya »

ngcazz wrote: post #8
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…

The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.

since I don't have full understanding of GDPR what is to prevent companies requiring access being granted for any use of their website?

if you have exchanged funds with a site how long are they allowed to keep the data. there are tax implications regardless

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#150

Post by chillingeffect »

throw2016 wrote: post #93
diasp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These aren't user issues, though!

All users have to do is go to https://podupti.me/ and pick a pod.

That's what I did a few weeks ago and I have begun drawing my friends over to it. Every few days I go on facebook and talk about what I've figured out about diaspora.

I've also begun posting my hobby content on diaspora first, then facebook a few days later. When I post on diaspora, I post the invitation to see it on diaspora.

Listening to Zuck's weaseling yesterday I felt vindicated.

Post reply on HN