221–230 of 325 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. Breach of contract opens you up to civil liability. Having this agreement creates disincentives that wouldn't otherwise exist. "Prevent" doesn't mean to make something physically impossible or remove the ability to choose. Police can prevent drunken driving by announcing they will have DUI checkpoints on New Year's Eve. It doesn't make…
Who is liable to whom when user A use a free service B based on an ambiguous agreement, and that service makes an ambiguous agreement with another service C, and C does something that is arguable a violation of one of those agreements? How much restitution am I entitled to for an ambiguous violation of an amorphous concept like privacy? And how much is Facebook entitled to from a partner who (might have) violated tha…
It's very strange that you'd throw your hands up and say, 'well FACEBOOK didn't do it so you're out of luck.' Facebook did do it by not regulating there third party agreements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Technically speaking, no contract was broken. When users signed up for Facebook, they clicked a button pursuant to which Facebook indemnified itself from everything under the sun. I am referring to this > These partners signed agreements not users.
It is difficult to say anything about the partners' agreements without seeing them. The problem these agreements exist in the first place. Instead of Facebook writing a Windows Phone app, they had Microsoft write the app and paid Microsoft with users' data. The difference would be ignored if it hadn't been replicated in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People are reasonably concerned about how much data Facebook is g…
That sure sounds like a misrepresentation of what happened here. From the article: "These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences."
I don't think I would represent facebook as "paying" google with user's data just because Chrome has access to user data when a user visits the facebook website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's probably nothing FB wants more than to be regulated into a monopoly
So long as we don't have to log onto to FB to file our taxes or something, how much harm can the regulator really inflict on the general public? Assume it ends up being a regulator that's really talented at harming the general public, like FCC...
They can make regulations on social networks that are infeasible to comply with for any company not making 10s of billions of dollars a year, effectively cementing facebook as the only legal social network. Whether you consider that a harm or not is up to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume a core tenet of ethics and deciding if something is unethical is if it has the potential to harm people. Inducing depression to indiscriminate masses is pretty high on the list. It's not valid to compare the emotional impact of Facebook on millions of its addicted users to something like the color of a box of laundry detergent.
Selling cake has the potential to harm people, a moral framework needs a bit more subtlety than that to be sensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Bookmarked for future reference. It's super important to remember that every company's behaviors reflect their incentive structure, not their mission statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume a core tenet of ethics and deciding if something is unethical is if it has the potential to harm people. Inducing depression to indiscriminate masses is pretty high on the list. It's not valid to compare the emotional impact of Facebook on millions of its addicted users to something like the color of a box of laundry detergent.
Selling cake has the potential to harm people, a moral framework needs a bit more subtlety than that to be sensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations forbid us from letting you access the filing cabinet but I can tell you, all of us will be out having a beer between 6 and 8 PM. Oh, and the key is under the flowerpot. Wink wink.
“But the terms of service were on display...” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the doo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a friend of one of my friends, who I am not connected with, can acces my private data despite my settings being clearly limited, with API access disabled, "friends of my friends" settings disabled, as was reported is possible, then yes that is ridiculous. However your reply completely fails to grasp the problem, like so many others. It's not the fact that I type in a user/password and get my data, it's that, I typ…
> your reply completely fails to grasp the problem, like so many others. That's because you're just making up a problem that doesn't exist. The replies are all talking about what is actually happening, not your fantasy world. As the article states: " friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends".
I don't understand why Apple Inc. needs access and permission to download and store my friends' data on Apple Inc. servers. That is what the NY Times reported, and Facebook has not directly denied it here.
Edit to be clear: I'm just using Apple as an example company.
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…
Metaphor is literally dead.