I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter • Hacker News Board

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#131

Post by GVIrish » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #110

prolepunk wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing badly functioning government with businesses functioning as intended. At least there's ability to enforce governmental responsibility through elections and free press. Facebook can be leveraged in no other way then through government regulation, even if you opt out from facebook it still watches you, and good luck even understanding of what's going on if you're not a technical person.

Taking an average over the world, most governments are badly functioning and they've been that way for years if not centuries. Business on the other side, tend to be punished by the markets when misbehaving and then course-correct.

> Business on the other side, tend to be punished by the markets when misbehaving and then course-correct.

That only happens when there are regulations to run afoul of and/or a company is not a monopoly. Without government companies would be free to pollute the environment, cheat customers, and abuse workers to breaking point. The market wouldn't punish those companies if all the companies in the market were doing the same kinds of things, which is what would happen if said bad behavior was profitable.

"Oh you don't disagree with Exxon poisoning community water supplies and using a private army to seize land from indigenous people? Tough luck, Shell and BP are doing the same thing."

Yeah most governments leave a lot to desire in efficiency, fairness, effectiveness, etc. But a world where corporations are the only ones who set the rules would be far worse.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#132

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

> But NSA surveillance is involuntary. Why are we more worried about a voluntary and foreseeable risk than an involuntary rights violation?

Americans do not broadly support reforming the NSA [1][2].

The reason for that is the same behind someone always posting, when HN discusses Facebook's shenanigans, "why is this news?" The public needs to see bodies to mobilise. The last few decades were filled with cable TV hosts and technologists screaming about existential threats to democracy. Most didn't pan out. The price we pay for our boys who cried wolf is a public demand for tangibility.

We don't have a case where the NSA's activities caused big, tangible, specific and easily-understood harm. We do with Facebook. Moreover, the NSA's leadership responded competently to criticism. Facebook's CEO and even rank-and-file reacted petulantly, which fuelled the fire.

> Don't interpret this as saying Facebook acted appropriately.

I'm glad you say this. Policy isn't zero sum. I, too, want to reform the NSA. But that isn't happening today. We do, however, in state houses, through our Attorneys General and in the EU, have a chance at dealing some heavy blows to Facebook.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/06/11/190638738... (2013)

[2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/19/americans-fe...

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#133

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

Barjak wrote: post #43

Am I alone in thinking this isn't heresy? A country or federal state is just a company with a monopoly over law in a certain geographical region. Facebook's "monopoly" is at least subject to the whim of the market, as the Delete Facebook campaign shows. Look at last week. The senate was on their high-horse, admonishing facebook for privacy infringements, totally unaware of the irony they are an appendage of the same…

[deleted]

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#134

Post by rememberlenny » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #122

rememberlenny wrote: post #105

Web platforms are governments. "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens, and Facebook's applications developers are the private companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other large network of engaged users (including some services of Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as…

Whether or not they are governments is a question of definition. Definitions are important, and social networks don't fit very well into it. They are fundamentally different from modern governments as they do not have a monopoly on coercion. If social media are governments, then every corporation - no, every association of people - on Earth is a government.

The key here is governance.

            ------------

I think if you click into the linked post, you get the analogy regarding governments and governance. Web platforms have to concern themselves with governance of their users and the respective eco-system that their users operate on.

The point is less to be abstract or symbolic, and instead look at the concrete decisions they have to make. Corporations or general relationships do not have to consider these points to the same degree for survival.

In the past, governments would create policies, laws, and make decisions that would determine the well being of a citizen. Now, web platforms are more commonly making decisions of regulation, censorship, interoperability, which all fall in the realm of governments.

  "So as you watch the large web services evolve, think 
  about how they are balancing the relationship between 
  the state and the private sector? What does Facebook's 
  introduction of Facebook Credits say about its monetary 
  policy? What is Apples foreign policy? Do they act 
  unilaterally promoting their own proprietary standards 
  or do they act multilaterally embracing international 
  standards? What is Twitter's industrial policy? Do they 
  invest in state owned services or encourage decentralized 
  economic development? The choices these platforms make 
  reveal a lot about who they are, and ultimately how well 
  they serve the companies operating in their economies and 
  the citizens who live there."

Companies or corporations in general may have a degree of these problems, but not in a way that their survival depends on.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#135

Post by textmode » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

"But Cambridge Analytica is a scandal that isn't a scandal: Everyone who has ever worked on or with the Facebook platform knew that for several years, the platform made data available to third-party developers by design. The scandal is that the world finally understands the ramifications of that state of affairs."

But could the world "understand the ramifications" based on reading terms of service and click-through permissions or did the world come to understand the ramifications through disclosures from "whistleblowers" and investigative journalism?

"We don't sell people's data. Period." - David Baser, Facebook

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/data-off-facebook/

According to the former Zuckerberg speechwriter, Facebook shares access to people's data with third-party app developers.

Does Facebook share people's data with academic researchers? Why? Can users opt-out of this sharing? Are they opted-in by default? How much data has Facebook shared in the past?

Do Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Sandberg, Mr. Baser and others at Facebook believe people would only be concerned with "sale" of their data, but not with sharing access to it with unidentified third parties?

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#136

Post by suyash » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

rememberlenny wrote: post #105

Web platforms are governments. "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens, and Facebook's applications developers are the private companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other large network of engaged users (including some services of Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as…

Great analogy that makes a lot of sense, never thought about it like that before.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#137

Post by Bartweiss » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

Hoasi wrote: post #71

Wurlitzer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't vote for Zuckerberg.

True, but you didn't pick your country of birth either—although it is possible, for some, to chose their country at a later date. Voting is only a partial choice (at best).

I know quite a few people who have never in their lives voted for the elected President - some are in their 50s and vote in every single election. Many have no other country which would let them in and better suit their desires.

That doesn't make democracy bad, but it's absolutely bizarre seeing people in these threads equate "you get to vote" with "you're voluntarily accepting your government". As you say, you don't get to pick where you're born, and the chance to vote doesn't necessarily change anything for you personally.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#138

Post by laythea » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

rememberlenny wrote: post #105

Web platforms are governments. "Facebook is a government. Facebook's users are citizens, and Facebook's applications developers are the private companies that drive much of the economy. Apple. Twitter, Myspace, Craigslist, Foursquare, Tumblr and every other large network of engaged users (including some services of Google) plays a similar role. We have always tacitly acknowledged this. We talk about these networks as…

In my opinion it is ridiculous to equate a web platform to a government, regardless of scale. One is a web-platform, the other is a government. The difference is clear to me.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#139

Post by wybiral » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

jrs95 wrote: post #130

wybiral wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing against populism, more so the nationalist aspect of the "nationalist populism". Particularly the idea that "diversity is the root of our problems" and "immigration is inherently bad". These ideas seem central to most of the nationalist movements in western society recently.

I generally agree. "Nationalism" is often just a euphemism for xenophobia which is not only immoral but counter productive if what you were really concerned about was the national interest. At the same time, I wish we could have a reasonable discussion about what level of immigration, free trade, etc is most beneficial for the people. There are legitimate issues that can arise from these things, but there's far too m…

Absolutely. We need less polarization and more nuanced debate.

It's one of those issues where it appears that party lines have been drawn around it and both sides seem to be drifting more and more extreme.

I don't think that the average person is that polarized on some of these issues, but instead I think party members are afraid of being shunned for not fervently agreeing.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#140

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #97

mannykannot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, someone could tag your face in a photograph even if you don't have a Facebook account.

And they don't even have to tag a face. Facebook does facial recognition on every face in a photograph. So you could be in the background of a picture taken in a restaurant by someone else and now suddenly you have a profile. Appear in the background of enough photos and Facebook can use other data to eventually figure out who you are, even if don't have a computer or smartphone.

> Appear in the background of enough photos and Facebook can use other data to eventually figure out who you are, even if don't have a computer or smartphone

Facebook faces a class action lawsuit for "improperly us[ing] facial recognition technology on their uploaded photographs" under an Illinois law "that says a private entity such as Facebook can't collect and store a person's biometric facial information without their written consent" [1].

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/16/603056662...