Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#171

Post by specialist » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #164

jacquesm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook never was part of 'the free internet', in fact it is a force strongly against the free internet.

> Facebook never was part of 'the free internet', in fact it is a force strongly against the free internet. That's the point. Imagine the result of all this is a piece of legislation that doesn't hamper Facebook in any significant way but imposes large fixed compliance costs on tech companies. Facebook is huge, they pay the costs without even noticing. People who want to dethrone Facebook, or replace it with some dec…

Yup. Textbook regulatory capture.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#172

Post by zippy786 » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

oneplusone wrote: post #169

zippy786 wrote: post #168

Q. Can the users completely delete their data ? Zuckerberg: Yes, there are two options. First to deactivate because students and want to suspend and come back because they want to study for exam. Second option is users can totally delete all their data. Where is the second option anyone from Facebook ? There is only an option to delete the account after you DIE, not an option to delete it when you are alive. So many…

Easy to google: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account

Thanks. But I could not find the link anywhere, can anyone even get here from Facebook page: https://imgur.com/1ijzgqV

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#173

Post by kristianc » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:32 PM UTC

Of course it was a sham. No one's interests are aligned to getting this solved.

Facebook want to get away with as minimal regulation as possible, and any regulation that does happen it wants to harm its incumbents.

Politicians want to get re-elected, and want regulation in so far as it harms the chances of anyone 'doing a Trump' and using social media to unseat their own Congressional seat. They're not that exercised about privacy otherwise they wouldn't have spent the last year arguing for a right to hack people's phones.

Users want to make the right noises / virtue signals to their friends about privacy but ultimately don't want to pay for Facebook.

'Researchers' want to make a name for themselves off the back of this issue and appear on TV but Oh My God don't ask me any questions about how this actually works or what an alternative looks like.

The media and publishers want the exposure and ad revenue that comes from running this story, but want to avoid anyone asking any difficult questions about them signing over their involvement in FB schemes such as Instant Articles or how they track their own users.

The process worked exactly as designed - it allowed everyone to have their pound of flesh while ensuring nothing actually gets done.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#174

Post by barrkel » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

wila wrote: post #63

gargravarr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm currently blocking these domains using uBlock:

    cdninstagram.com
    facebook.com
    facebook.net
    fb.com
    fb.me
    fbcdn.com
    fbcdn.net
    fbsbx.com
    instagram.com
    m.me
    messenger.com
    tfbnw.net
    whatsapp.com

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #143

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Not only that, laws have a tendency to set a particular model in stone.

The model large companies use is to collect everything they possibly can and then use bureaucratic processes to control access.

The model small companies and individuals use is to minimize the data they collect and use technical means to ensure that the company has no access to the customer's data at all. This obviously tends to be more secure.

But if the bureaucratic process is required by law regardless of whether it's really protecting anything, the more secure model becomes impossible -- you have to collect all the data because it's the only way to make enough money to pay for the bureaucratic overhead.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#176

Post by aninhumer » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

throwaway413 wrote: post #123

aninhumer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So I have currently zero empathy for the "victims" of this leak. Quite the contrary, I feel a little angry. Because I have to leave in a world that could be much more beautiful if only people, sometimes, just sometimes, though about the consequences of their life instead of just going with the motion. And this affects much more than privacy. And it's unfair. And the very fact that you insist on blaming the individua…

Chalking everything up to “society” is a great way to never get anything solved. Change starts with oneself. Connecting on an individual level, making changes on an individual level, understanding and valuing even minute consequences on the individual level - that’s what going to bring about permanent change. Not more groupthink. We have brains and decision-making abilities for a reason. Yes, I understand society has…

So how do you suggest we solve the problem without collective actions? What "changes on an individual level" do you think need to occur, and how do you expect them to come about?

Because to me, it seems like the individualist's prescription is just to judge people for making bad choices and hope they make better ones in future.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#177

Post by specialist » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #90

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…

I've never used Facebook but isn't its success mostly being "at the right place at the right time"? There were social networks before it and I'm not really sure what's so unique and revolutionary about Facebook. I think the main differentiating factor over something like MySpace was the use of real names and the more "adult" interface which lined up with the complete "mainstreamification" of the internet in the 2nd h…

Facebook's success factors were 1) seeded with Ivy League students 2) access to capital 3) no contrition.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#178

Post by predavlad » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

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.

The server requirements seems quite easy to install (a server, a database, the ruby/gem stuff, and git).

Not sure how well the package manager works with the long list of gems - https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/blob/develop/Gemfile

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#179

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #160

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…

it was a sham because asking hard questions would require them to admit FB being an important asset for US own intelligence operations. If they drill too deep they'd need to face very uncomfortable questions about other platforms too, e.g Palantir (Thiel was right there lurking ;)). Facebook is the Internet in many countries (making them less resilient and even more prone to meddling than the US). And so looking at i…

oh and Sarah Jeong just now:

"Going to tweet out amounts received by each Congressperson from Facebook since 2014 as they speak in this hearing"

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/984075571981266944

this is worth gold!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#180

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #148

ivanhoe wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> For one thing, no one is talking about regulation of social media that has to do with life and death matters

You may not believe that if you live in Myanmar or Kenya. Large amounts of behavioral information in the hands of the wrong people can absolutely be a life or death issue.