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

151–160 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#151

Post by _khau »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #140
najarvg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... )

And hidden in a lot of these anti-economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of planned economies, which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times :)

Are those the only two options you can see? Trickle-down economics or communism?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#152

Post by ryanwaggoner »

Calloggs wrote: post #149
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's rea…

Your metaphor is good, but misses the part where this art museum has either bought or forced downsizing/closure on all other competitive museums. That forces artists to choose this museum or one that it owns if they want any recognition/income from the work they do (this museum certainly isn't paying them for the work).

That would be a fair concern if it were true. But Facebook is hardly the only way to build an audience. What about Twitter, or Snapchat, or just building and hosting your own site and using Facebook as just another promotion channel?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#153

Post by manfredo »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67
breischl wrote: post #29

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…

> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data.

No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact.

GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can. But this is the user's prerogative, not Facebook's.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#155

Post by [deleted] »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #145
AlexandrB wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's really striking is how user-hostile this conversation is. Forget about whether the user wants to share their data or not - it's all about what Facebook wants to do. In this case, that's snuffing competition by denying access, in the case of Cambridge Analytica, it's sharing data for purposes of shady data "research".

If you own a grocery store and there's a guy on the other side of town who is cheaper, the people who come to your store because it's more convenient would love for you to be forced to just give away half your space to your competitor. Doesn't mean it's "user hostile" to refuse to do so.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#157

Post by bduerst »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #139
bduerst wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, didn't know that. Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?

> Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't? Yes. Onavo built “consumer-facing apps to help optimise device and app performance and battery life on iOS and Android devices” [1] while piping their users’ data to Facebook. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...

So they were basically the spamware apps like flashlight and other 'performance enhancers'? That makes this kind of worse, especially if they continued it after acquisition.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#159

Post by notacoward »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

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.

Yes, I do work at Facebook. I'm not going to get into some protracted argument about whether that makes me a bad person, or already was, but I'd like to give you something to think about.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can neatly divide tech workers into good and bad. Likewise for companies. All categories are non-empty, and certain to remain so. What's the optimal assignment of workers to companies? Is it never beneficial for a good person to work at a bad company, perhaps making it less bad? Is it never harmful for a bad person to work at a good company, perhaps making it less good? Is it better to have all of the bad people concentrated at a few companies, or distributed throughout the industry?

Once you start thinking about it, I think you'll see that the Manichaean "entirely and immutably good or entirely and immutably bad" model just isn't very useful. Maybe we should talk about good vs. bad behaviors instead of demonizing (or for that matter idolizing) people - especially large groups of people in aggregate.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#160

Post by wolco »

soziawa wrote: post #38
wolco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not shame workers at facebook. If you do you have to shame anyone who works at any big tech form for the decisions of the leaders. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle included.

> Let's not shame workers at facebook. If you work for Facebook and don't just clean the offices you had the choice.

Then everyone including the cleaners,anyone using facebook as a user, investors, goverment officials and every American as the government officials are decided by them. Include the press for promoting them through stories or by setting the discussion points for each election.

Shame on everyone.

Post reply on HN