Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

81–90 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#81

Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

> Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

Does it apply to the people using its products, softwares, services?

What's the ethical threshold for using reactjs for example in this scenario?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#82
post #7

> Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Stuff like this should trigger the EU Commissioner for Competition to withdraw the aut…

The good news is that Onavo was removed from the App Store. For some reason Google seem to be happy letting it stay on Android though.

"Don't be evil" -> "Don't be the most evil"

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#83
post #73

Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to look after people's interests. Time to get serious, act on this, and break up Facebook forever.

Indeed, kudos to them having the gall to do such a thing. Heavily lobbied congressmen would never do such a thing or even implement something like GDPR here.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#84
post #76
post #28

Thx for link. Everytime i read the word ‘whitelist’, i think, havn’t they caught up with the times, thats racist, whitelist. Why does white suggest good?

"White" as symbolizing purity or goodness and "black" for contamination or evil is used by a wide variety of cultures around the world, only a minority of which happens to consist primarily of people with un-melanined skin. If you think "whitelist" and "blacklist" is racist, just wait until you find out about Yin and Yang.

Indeed. Perhaps also worth noting is that in actuality humans are pretty much all varying shades of brown.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

> is not Facebook's data

Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#86
post #7

> Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Stuff like this should trigger the EU Commissioner for Competition to withdraw the aut…

I agree with the conclusion, but I don't think it should be done through the current antitrust framework.

Your first point and most of the others others may or may not be illegal. If they are legal, what the MPs need to do is their jobs.. make laws. But, most are not directly related to company size and/or market share.

Your second point does sound like a trust and I think you're right to link this to the WhatsApp sale.

But... Regardless of the FB/WhatsApp conclusion, that is a one-off that won't lead to much systemic change whether it's a fine or an order to de-merge.

What we need (imo) is a whole new approach to antitrust that doesn't hinge on a definition of monopoly.

Companies beyond a certain size should just be put under a different set of obligations than smaller ones. They should be assumed to have market power by merit of their size.

When it comes to gdpr and such, these need to be written differently for large companies. Basically, no more equality before the law for companies. What we get in return is rule of law.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#87
post #73

Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to look after people's interests. Time to get serious, act on this, and break up Facebook forever.

This is our committee system working as intended. I wish it still applied to other areas of governance like local government funding, lobbying, MPs in government and so on.

Late Edit: I must add to that list admission of ministerial responsibility. The last resignation with honour, rather than for political point scoring, was Lord Carrington resigning as Foreign Secretary in 1982. Since then it's a dead concept.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#89
post #78
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating for anything here, but isn't hurting innovation and economic growth exactly what FB is doing by snuffing out promising products based on analytics?

Would it be better if, instead of analytics, they flipped a coin?

Using analytics to restrict apps based on their popularity - if that's what Facebook did - is definitely much more anti-competitive behaviour and even more likely to hurt growth than simply being arbitrary or completely random in their decision making. But yes, a non-arbitrary policy of allowing developers access if they followed a transparent set of rules would obviously be better.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

I agree with your point overall, but we need to recognize here that the problem isn't Facebook being selective, it's Facebook being a monopoly.
Post reply on HN