[dead]
A Look Inside the Tactics of Definers, Facebook’s Attack Dog
51–54 of 54 posts
Re: A Look Inside the Tactics of Definers, Facebook’s Attack Dog
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook applying for patents on distinctly creepy inferences from photos is hardly a hit piece. That one is by buzzfeednews, not the nytimes. I know it's hard to tell the difference between news companies today. There are 3 hitpieces on facebook on the frontpage. 2 of those are by the nytimes. There is a 4th by the businessinsider trying to make it's way to the frontpage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18465…
I still don't see them as hit pieces though, and I've seen only two NYT pieces about FB hit HN today. This one is talking of a specific company they hired. The piece about students not wanting to work there is a bit more woolly, granted. It doesn't seem like they're being singled out unfairly to me.
Re: A Look Inside the Tactics of Definers, Facebook’s Attack Dog
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't have to "go there". But since you did... Well, it's been whitewashed there, as you might expect for an information source so prominent in the public eye. I'll be damned if I'm going to try to unpack the enormities contained in the idea of masters awarding slaves cake for the best performances of their own mockery, here on HN, on a thread about FB. I'll point out that the wikipedia section on "Fancy ladies"…
Jesus go have a cup of tea or so mething. As for being shocked so deeply by this, perhaps it's time to grow up a little and realise history isn't clean sections with adverts in-between and censoring of the violence, it's full of arseholes doing the most rotten shit they can get away with either for pleasure or gain, and then realise the shocker: those arseholes still exist.
The thing I find most amusing about your response is that it could cut-and-paste replace my own response to the OP.
You're reiterating my point. And also, perhaps, missing it at the same time?
Re: A Look Inside the Tactics of Definers, Facebook’s Attack Dog
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data” I am curious evidences of this. Or are you comparing objectively with the two relative to recent events? Then sure. FB’s been very sketchy all this time with little knowing until the whole election interference and Cambridge scandal went public and viral did people pay attention. But thanks for the takeaways.
Not sure if I understand you here. Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. They also do not sell user data (that's not their business model). Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. They are happy if you want to take your data and go to someone else - they released takeaway tool…
Uhhh, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you about Google being a "good guy" here. For example, did you know that people at Google can read your email [1]? ...And so can literally hundreds of app makers...[2] That to me is about as flagrant and messed up as I can imagine. If you really trust Google with your data, I recommend you investigate their (very) checkered history a bit more.
[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-g... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers...