Facebook's seized files published by MPs • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#161

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #143

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.

Nobody else has a comparable dataset on a comparable scale. Microsoft wasn't the only company supplying operating systems in the 1990s either.

Comparable dataset of what, exactly? Of Facebook's internal user data?

Think about how much data Amazon has about all the suppliers and products they've sold over the last twenty years. Should they be forced to hand it over to anyone who wants it just because of the fact that its size and exclusivity makes it very valuable?

What about the governments databases on everything under the sun? Should all of that be public?

Maybe the answer to the above questions is yes, I don't know, but I don't think it's axiomatic.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#162

Post by amelius » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

fantunes wrote: post #81

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.

> 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?

By using reactjs you are supporting their R&D. It improves their attractiveness for top researchers.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#163

Post by ionised » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131

CPLX wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a statement that requires evidence and proof. Market fundamentalists are so used to advancing arguments like this without being challenged that they have become almost completely divorced from the scientific method entirely. Maybe being forced to share this kind of proprietary data, in this specific type of circumstance, will actually promote a more diverse marketplace with higher innovation. Maybe it won't. E…

You're not a "fundamentalist" because you mention the fundamentals of a field of study. It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. And given that the person you're responding to is stating something that most economists would agree with, I think the impetus is on you to tear it down with "the scientific method" if you think the prevailing wisdom is wrong. TLDR: don'…

No, you're a fundamentalist if you stick to an ideology (e.g. trickle-down) in spite of all evidence suggesting it is highly flawed.

> It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic.

You mean you personally find it impossible to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you on the axioms of economics because it means you can't frame the argument in your own terms, which would be that there is no alternative to what you are espousing.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#164

Post by JustSomeNobody » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

mikejb wrote: post #63

sbhn wrote: 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?

There's plenty of similar cases in IT. Some people find Master/Slave offensive - though I personally believe this is a 'looking for problems'-kind of thing.

Yeah, we'd have to go through all sorts of books and documents on mechanics and electronics to whiteout (Doh! doing it again!!!) reference to those terms.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#165

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

arminiusreturns wrote: post #118

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…

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!

Don't they use React for their UI?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#166

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

_khau wrote: post #151

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Planned economies need not be communist, and no, but I was attempting (probably poorly) to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the argument that being pro-economic growth requires believing in trickle down economics.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#167

Post by ionised » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

Jyaif wrote: post #54

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.

That's a rehash of the argument against the existence of proprietary tech (and patents). It also has the same limitations: If there's no competitive advantage to having proprietary data, then what's the point of developing the tech and services to try and obtain it?

I think you've answered your own question.

There wouldn't be any point, and it would be totally fine.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#168

Post by fipple » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

dnadler wrote: post #78

dyeje wrote: 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?

Yes, because if they had to flip a coin they would buy fewer companies, which would lead to less market consolidation.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#169

Post by NeedMoreTea » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #124

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

Let's go with the tortured metaphor.

Popular art museums generally run with allowing entry without requiring membership. They make up for that by collecting donations or entry fee, running a comparatively expensive cafe, and ensuring everyone leaves via the gift shop. They might heavily promote, and employ people to individually sell memberships, or give free membership in exchange for monthly gift shop and offers spam. One or two might be a little too heavy handed in promoting membership over visit.

They don't plant a bug in your pocket without knowledge, or consent to learn what other art museums and galleries you are visiting to assess if they are a worthy target of restriction or takeover. They don't insist on knowing your entire contact list and SMS history just to look at the pictures. They don't ban employees of other galleries and museums from visiting. Not least because 9 times out of 10 they would not know if they worked for a different city's gallery.

That's enough torturing. ;)

One of the above is a fair exchange, that can be freely and knowingly chosen. The other is using undisclosed and underhand methods to get extra leverage. That, by definition, cannot be fair. Turns out it's illegal too.

This is one of the very rare cases where I wish the UK had a little more of the US's litigious culture. In my 50 odd years it's the first and only case. Normally I wish for the reverse. :)

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#170

Post by ionised » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

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?

Why should we care if WhatsApp can't sustain itself?