Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#111

Post by ysavir »

danarmak wrote: post #14
paganel wrote: 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…

How do you force a split when one part (Whatsapp) may not have enough revenue to sustain itself?

Whatsapp has enough of a userbase and a usecase that enough people will be willing to pay to sustain it.

What _will_ happen is that other free services will pop up and be used, and some users will migrate to those. Which is a good thing. We'll have actual competition on the field instead of a single dominant player.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#112

Post by umeshunni »

sbhn wrote: post #52
breischl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've wondered that too. My inexpert, unresearched guess is that people are scared of darkness, because we don't see too well. Hence black is a scary/bad color, and blacklists are the things to avoid. Brightness is good - you can see, it's usually warm, etc. Hence whitelist. But like I said, total off-the-cuff guess, take it for what it's worth.

Good response, i thought it was left over terminology from segregation times. You may be right

There was English before America, FYI

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#113

Post by makomk »

fosco wrote: post #65
Trill-I-Am wrote: post #2

Here is a direct link to the files themselves: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu...

holy smokes... >Michael LeBeau – ‘He guys, as you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the ‘read call log’ permission, which will trigger the Android permissions dialog on update, requiring users to accept the update. They will then provide an in app opt in NUX for a feature that lets you continuously upload your SMS and c…

As of a few years ago, Android asks users to agree to categories of permissions rather than individual permissions, and adding permissions from the same category doesn't count as a new permissions grant. Based on that description it doesn't sound like Facebook was abusing this since they still required users to opt in. (Though I seem to recall from older discussions of this that in actual fact, the opt-in process they implemented was sleazy and high-pressure.)

If their application only needed to run on newer Android, I think they could rely on runtime permissions and not request this permission at all unless the user actually turns the feature on - but even now about a third of Android devices in use are on versions too old to support this.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#114

Post by gk1 »

evilzuku wrote: post #33
tpush wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really interesting stuff in there. > Facebook email 24 January 2013 > Justin Osofsky – ‘Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video. As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We’ve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision. > MZ – ‘Yup, go…

Nothing says evil more than preparing reactive PR to bury your competitors. And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine. These people will suffocate innovation just to win.

> And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine.

CEOs of massive companies don't have time to write long and explanatory emails. They put people in charge that they trust, so they can just say one word or sentence and know that it'll get handled.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#115

Post by notahacker »

isostatic wrote: post #24
paganel wrote: 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…

> A fine (no matter how big) $200 billion, and a review in 12 months time? That's 5 years revenue. $100 per user, sounds reasonable. Facebook can put in an easy "claim your $100" button on their site. Would that just be a "cost of doing business"?

Interesting challenge: how to design that button to make it conform to mandated guidelines on its appearance, size, position and wording whilst also making it look enough like the sort of probable-scam advert users generally ignore to limit the number of Facebook members who actually claim it. Facebook probably has data to help them with that too :D

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#116

Post by fosco »

mikejb wrote: post #103
fosco wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy smokes... >Michael LeBeau – ‘He guys, as you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the ‘read call log’ permission, which will trigger the Android permissions dialog on update, requiring users to accept the update. They will then provide an in app opt in NUX for a feature that lets you continuously upload your SMS and c…

> This is huge, doesn't this make google guilty as well? I'm not sure I follow. An app can request permissions, and the user can allow or deny them. I don't understand how this puts guilt on Google. Can you elaborate?

this seems like a hole in their design, additional access is being granted without the user really knowing what is going on and they are deliberately keeping the user out of the loop.

at least, that is how I am interpreting it, it seems that the functionality of their software is not functioning in the 'spirit' of what it is suppose to be doing.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#117

Post by [deleted] »

jamiegreen wrote: post #93
tpush wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really interesting stuff in there. > Facebook email 24 January 2013 > Justin Osofsky – ‘Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video. As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We’ve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision. > MZ – ‘Yup, go…

What is NUX? I was googling and closest I could find was New User Experience, is that right?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#118

Post by arminiusreturns »

fosco wrote: post #65
Trill-I-Am wrote: post #2

Here is a direct link to the files themselves: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu...

holy smokes... >Michael LeBeau – ‘He guys, as you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the ‘read call log’ permission, which will trigger the Android permissions dialog on update, requiring users to accept the update. They will then provide an in app opt in NUX for a feature that lets you continuously upload your SMS and c…

Now remember that Facebook has made agreements with phone manufacturers to have fb installed by default and made un-uninstallable, with all the default permissions to share the users data whether they ever log in and use the app or not!

Sidenote: I've noticed via umatrix that Netflix on pc, during a show, is attempting to load fb js... Netflix wtf!

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#119

Post by krrrh »

cmsonger wrote: post #41
danarmak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you force a split when one part (Whatsapp) may not have enough revenue to sustain itself?

I've long held a theory that many of the "basic infrastructure" pieces of technology would best be put forward by non-profits. The profit imperative can be an insidious corrosive influence.

When the WhatsApp acquisition happened while they had only a few dozen employees and were reportedly profitable off of their $1 per year business model, it was clear to me that the days when a small non-profit could run the world’s chat infrastructure weren’t far off.

That the Signal Foundation is now basically funded by interest earned on money made from that very WhatsApp sale is quite poetic.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/signal-foun...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#120

Post by najarvg »

kevmo wrote: post #61
btown wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that suboptimally promotes innovation and economic growth.

Economic growth is overrated when it only goes to 1% of people.

Hidden in a lot of these economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of trickle-down economics which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times (see - https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-eff...)
Post reply on HN