Security related issues need some time to investigate and to produce a proper report. This post seems like a knee jerk reaction. Actually, while this sounds like more PR fluff in a poor attempt to stem more scrutiny, I'm confident that there will be more reports from other sources providing a stronger case against Facebook's claim on this topic. This post makes it clear that Facebook is clueless if there are any weaknesses or breaches (despite shutting down 22 partnerships).
Why We Disagree with The New York Times
11–20 of 325 posts
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#12I didn't read/ watch the testimony before Congress. Did they flatly claim that "we no longer share private information with third parties"? Because if so, this post seems to confirm that that was a lie, even they give (arguably) good justifications here for why they share private information with some third parties.
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#13It reads like a long defensive argument, "how else did you expect us to make huge sums of money"? It is exactly as tone-deaf and legalese as you would expect. There is no new information here; Facebook says legal contracts actually protect your data so it can't go anywhere, "just trust us", etc. > These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than…
... and thus begins a new series of regulations designed to pierce the plausible deniability of "terms of service". People complain about GDPR and other regulations, but they are created to close loopholes that were abused by companies like Facebook.
There's probably nothing FB wants more than to be regulated into a monopoly
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#14Oh I am so sad, Facebook is “victim” of lies and poor reporting, let me get my tiny violin.
Facebook lies every possible time, it’s built into their perverse business model. Even if the article was actually wrong, it’s only fair that they get a taste of their own medicine every once in a while.
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#15"We Disagree": the last refuge of a company's defense when they have absolutely nothing else to counter or rebuke their opponent's argument.
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#16The fact that you can't read messages (without switching to 'desktop mode') on their mobile web app is such horse shit. Yuck.
Either that or you can go to the basic version at mbasic.facebook.com for an even poorer (though somewhat better in some senses, like having messages integrated) experience.
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#17This is the same they said about Cambridge Analytica initially... but you can't just blindly trust others (in this case apparently 60 companies got priviliged access). If it's technically possible, then someone will do it. When your data is gone, its gone. How naive is Facebook really?
They're not naive at all. When it's not in your business interest to manipulate reality, you manipulate perception.
Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times
#18Perhaps Zuck isn't as bright as we all think? This reply is far too tech-heavy, and jargon-littered to be taken seriously as a reply to something as mainstream as the NYT.
Their PR problems aren't rooted in SV, yet that's who this is targeted to. It doesn't make (good brand) sense.