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

181–190 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#181

Post by ryanwaggoner »

ionised wrote: post #163
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't actually know my views or what I'd espouse, so I'm curious about your hostility here :)

My only point was that you may have better success railing against the conventional wisdom by providing an actual argument that it's wrong, not by ranting and raving about the existence of prevailing wisdom itself, and demanding that everyone provide a detailed proof every time they reference it.

You should check out the works of Milton Friedman, you might find them interesting!

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#182

Post by Angostura »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #107
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...

My understanding is that gdpr still doesn't say that it's your data and not Facebook's, it just gives you certain rights to that data such as the right to have it deleted.

Facebook is the Data Controller, not the owner of the data

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#184

Post by chrisseaton »

steve_gh wrote: post #180
kodablah wrote: post #121

So, FB gave some companies preferential access after removing it for devs, they surreptitiously collected phone data after given permission to, used cross-business analytics for M&A or competition info, was choosy and chatty about who got what data and its value. I agree there are clear immoralities at play, especially with collecting phone call info, but not sure that it is worthy of a government inquiry of such siz…

WRT doing business in the UK. You need to understand that this is a highly unusual situation. Part of the UK Parliamentary system is that there are "Select Committees"on MPs, whose job is to review and hold to account the performance of government bodies and departments. They may also review areas of national interest within their remit, and invite witnesses to give evidence to them. For example, there have been sign…

> an invitation from a select committee to give evidence has the same sort of weight as a court summons to give evidence

It doesn't!

As you say yourself, one is a summons, the other is nothing more than an invitation to attend.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#185

Post by i_am_nomad »

notacoward wrote: post #159
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…

The real question is, can a moral person do more good by working at Facebook, or by refusing to work at Facebook? I would argue that Facebook is a bad actor and harmful to society, so the only people who should work at Facebook, morally speaking, are incompetent people who will damage the company.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#186

Post by kodablah »

notacoward wrote: post #159
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…

I don't work at FB and wouldn't (nor do I even have an account), but even I can recognize that to many the benefits of FB outweigh the negatives. In a tech-centric board such as this one coupled with media/government-driven narratives to the contrary, it can appear to be obvious that there are way more negatives than positives, the world would be better w/out FB, and you should quit. But in a non-tech-environment the view is sometimes the complete opposite, and people just can't fathom why people want to use FB (as opposed to them being "forced" due to network effects and lack of alternatives).

This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure, FB does immoral things. But why can't we simply recognize that people disagree about whether harm exists, whether value exists, and what weights are applied to each? As you say, this is not clear good vs bad, this is some good vs some bad and at what levels.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#187

Post by manfredo »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #169
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…

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 sp…

If the museum waived the entry fees for users that opted into a having their info tracked and the data monetized there are probably people who would prefer to compensate the museum that way. It'd probably open up access to the museum to poorer people that couldn't afford the ticket. Heck, I'd probably do it. My contact info has almost certainly been collected already, so for me it's basically instant savings. Your main criticism is that the data collection is undisclosed. I'm sure there's debate to be had over whether Facebook was transparent about it's data collection, but they always did tell users about it in some capacity.

How much would Facebook cost if users has to pay cash? I think the Economist did a survey on this topic with Google search and the average price people were willing to pay was $1,500 a year. If Google switched from monetizing user data and advertising to charging money, how much human productivity would be lost because some people can't afford a good search engine? How much would this exacerbate academic difficulties of poorer student if we add the fact that their classmates can search online information more effectively because their parents can afford Google search?

The lack of tangibility of paying for products with personal data instead of money can be irksome, but it has created an unprecedented ability to build large, complex services while delivering them free of (monetary) cost to the end user.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#188

Post by notacoward »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #171
notacoward wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd say the HN response is, no, you can't be good and work at FB.

Pretty sure you're right, but I figure at least a few people might be able to realize that "you should be ashamed" just doesn't lead in any productive direction. What if I was ashamed? Would leaving be the only positive reaction to that? As great as I think I am, I don't think Facebook would miss me. They'd just replace me. I'd just carry the taint to my next company, while my replacement also becomes tainted. Good job. Big thumbs up. In that hypothetical, is it not even possible that somebody could do more good by staying?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#189

Post by [deleted] »

notacoward wrote: post #159
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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#190

Post by nradov »

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…

As a Facebook user I'm glad they don't grant access to influencer marketing companies. Those companies drive the creation of trash content which would harm the Facebook user experience.
Post reply on HN