Why We Disagree with The New York Times • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #45

jacobsheehy wrote: post #2

It 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…

> Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. Why is this, though? How is it different from any other legal agreements?

> How is it different from any other legal agreements?

Suppose I tell you a secret. You promise only to share it with others who will keep it a secret. You share my secret with Bob. Bob promises he won't share my secret. Bob shares my secret.

You broke your promise. You tried not to break it. But break it you did.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#62

Post by Liquix » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #45

jacobsheehy wrote: post #2

It 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…

> Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. Why is this, though? How is it different from any other legal agreements?

I think the argument is that saying "I promise not to murder someone" does not in any way prevent said party turning around and murdering someone - signing a contract does not prevent these companies from violating the terms of the contract.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#63

Post by patja » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:15 PM UTC

seanalltogether wrote: post #23

The limited responses so far in this thread only reinforce many companies decisions to pull support for public apis. How many years have developers been complaining that twitter and facebook have been restricting access to apis for 3rd parties, but now all of a sudden they're evil for ever offering apis to begin with?

Offering an API is great. Just don't expect developers to voluntarily restrain their use of the API according to some words you put on a web page. Maybe most will do so, but a significant portion will growth-hack their way right past whatever policy they agreed to. If you don't want someone to do something with your API, you better make it impossible to accomplish using said API.

The problem is in offering an API that makes abuse trivially simple and putting all of your faith in the "click agree" model of expecting developers to (a) understand and (b) actually comply with your policy. Particularly when many of the developers in question are non-native English speakers, or even if they are native speakers and don't bother to read the policy carefully.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#64

Post by mlb_hn » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

Facebook's making the distinction between allowing a device to offer Facebook-like services (which require Facebook functionality) and third-party apps that suck up all your friend data.

On the one hand, Facebook's got a point, that if you want to be able to use Facebook on a device without going through the Facebook app or the website the device needs to be able to authenticate onto some sort of API.

On the other hand, the NYT article makes the claim that the makers of the devices got access to the Facebook data, writing "Facebook acknowledged that some partners did store users’ data — including friends’ data — on their own servers". However, Facebook never followed up on that in their article, just pointing out that if you are logged into Facebook on a BlackBerry that the BlackBerry can make the same requests you could if you were logged into Facebook through the web browser.

The question that matters which neither side addresses well is how much of that data makes it to device maker servers (for a while, the NYT homepage was claiming 'dozens' but they removed that and it doesn't appear to be substantiated in the article).

There are related worries with the device having access to the Facebook data itself, but at that point you need to start worrying about malicious activity by device makers in general. E.g. will my phone start sending my web history back to its maker as well? my bank account numbers?

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#65

Post by nemild » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

dreamcompiler wrote: post #17

kerng wrote: post #3

This 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.

I think it's a more complex picture. I did my own deep dive after years of reflecting on this:

Inside the Bubble at Facebook

"Management will laud what employees do, show them selective facts that justify their views, and hire/promote those who behave similarly to them. Employees in isolated teams with training in a single function may not realize the broad, unintended effects of their company's work. They'll assume the best of their coworkers that they've developed friendships with from working in the trenches, without inquiring into the larger effects they're having."

https://www.nemil.com/tdf/part1-employees.html

Would love feedback.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#66

Post by theyinwhy » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

AzzieElbab wrote: post #49

Your real data has already been mishandled by anyone from banks to healthcare providers to governments. This mass hysteria about FB is just silly nuisance constantly getting blown out of proportions by turf wars between FB and traditional media Oh and this particular case FB is calling the nyt fake news

With all that inside knowledge you probably should blow the whistle.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#67

Post by oprah2018 » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61

dominotw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. Why is this, though? How is it different from any other legal agreements?

> How is it different from any other legal agreements? Suppose I tell you a secret. You promise only to share it with others who will keep it a secret. You share my secret with Bob. Bob promises he won't share my secret. Bob shares my secret. You broke your promise. You tried not to break it. But break it you did.

None of this changes the fact that I want Likes on my vacation photos, kid photos, and pics of my food, all of which are of better quality than yours.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#68

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

chiefalchemist wrote: post #18

Perhaps 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.

> Their PR problems aren't rooted in SV Silicon Valley is the last place I'm consistently hearing full-throated defenses of Facebook. It makes sense to keep one's base in order.

That might be sure. But it's still not their bigger / biggest PR problem.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#69

Post by oprah2018 » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

mkirklions wrote: post #51

stealthefocus wrote: post #37

The one thing I really miss since leaving fb in March, are the groups. Things like playing in local sports pickup games are easier because everyone has fb so the groups were more active. I now use my wife's account for this, but I really wish another option had some traction, then I could leave fb forever.

I dont think there is anything wrong with using FB for things you want. I dont scroll anymore. I check it for events and messages. Thats it. Do that 1-2 times a month, all my facebook needs are met.

I don't even read anyone else's posts. I just post pictures of my amazing life. I use it like a diary. Or a time-series multimedia database.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#70

Post by ptero » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

> These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences.

That is a big door and a pretty open use case. I am not buying into "and this is actually good for the users" story.

To me, FB must clearly choose how to handle this: (A) "we made a mistake, sorry; we will fix it" or (B) "this is working as designed; if you do not like it, go away". They could probably justify either case both internally and externally (better ethics vs better revenue), but trying to stand in the middle as they have often done in the past will likely backfire. Buy more popcorn. My 2c.