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

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#281

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #250

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'…

I have a degree in economics and I disagree with it. If you were in fact an economist yourself, perhaps you would have recognized market fundamentalism as a term with a specific meaning, often used by economists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

That's not a term of art in economics.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#282

Post by gowld » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #253

evilzuku wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CEOs and executives are the closest equivalent of royalty in the United States. Their media coverage is often hagiographic as a result. They are humanized and puffed up in the press to an extent that foreign press would never think to do about business leaders in their own countries. Inch upon inch of columns are dedicated to their morning habits, favourite TV shows and fashion choices, and other fluff content to mak…

Zuck has a bespoke hoodie, and ordered a pallet of them for the company so his employees could dress like him.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#283

Post by Mahn » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

hkt wrote: 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.

I think this sets an awful precedent and it's astonishing that an action like this would be applauded. But you do you.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#284

Post by good_intentions » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #231

I worked at Facebook for 5 years on Workplace and Internal Tools. I am typically very critical of the company nowadays, but even so find the discussion here difficult to digest. People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making…

While I agree that humans are complex and should not be generalized by one or a few actions, Facebook as a whole has repeatedly demonstrated they are not good stewards of the data entrusted to them by users. The actions of their leaders is in complete conflict with the messaging they portray.

From the ad campaign run by Facebook in 2018: "...From now on, Facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy, so we can all get back to what made Facebook good in the first place: friends. Because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer."

To anyone looking closely at the actions of executives and living outside the SV echo chamber, this statement is laughable.

While the actions of the many inside the company have been noble, they too have been taken advantage of just as those who used the platform for so many years.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#285

Post by seattlekiwi » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

dkersten wrote: post #227

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't they use React for their UI?

Surely they would serve it from their own CDN though?

Taking advantage of everyone having it already cached on their machine maybe? Or it could just be standard ad retargeting - not unreasonable that Netflix would want to stream behavior data to facebook ads for targeting / lookalike purposes

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#286

Post by nindalf » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #162

fantunes wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What if you use a website that uses reactjs? How culpable are you?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#287

Post by oliveshell » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

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.

I agree; of course that isn’t.

But being forced to give away half your physical retail space is hardly the same thing as just letting them keep using an API that you provide explicitly for such use.

Also, more broadly: one would have quite a hard time making the case that Facebook isn’t nakedly, gleefully, and rapaciously user-hostile.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#288

Post by Skrillex » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

6cd6beb wrote: post #69

chrisseaton wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you. Everyone needs to work somewhere, you know, and not everyone has much of a choice about where. No shame in putting food on the table for your family.

>No shame in putting food on the table for your family. Balderdash. Don't construct situations where people just shrug their shoulders and go along with morally inequitable because they're getting paid for it. Besides, no one's throwing up their hands and saying "Gosh, I really messed up this time! I guess the only options left are working at Facebook or sucking dick under a bridge!"

I would be willing to choose the latter option for FB money. If it were that lucrative, I'd already be there with my new startup.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#289

Post by maemilius » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #191

athrowaway3z wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't answer your question but i think you should be more specific. Your phrasing obviously comes with the interpretation that if a split-up would bankrupt a part, it shouldn't be done. Why should this be taken into consideration? Secondly. It has value. A different party could invest and keep it going. Why is it important that it sustains itself?

If the objective is to increase competition, by making WhatsApp into the Facebook competitor they currently aren't, you need them to stay in business. Of course, if you just wanted to punish facebook by destroying shareholder value, or you're certain WhatsApp users will move to an FB competitor rather than to FB itself, you might not care if WhatsApp stays in business post-breakup.

As far as I'm aware, the only thing WhatsApp competed with Facebook over is Messenger, and even that seems like a stretch to me.

My impression of the situation is that Facebook bought WhatsApp for its data and user-base; not because it was competition.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#290

Post by 0db532a0 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #278

0db532a0 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right regarding the meanings. They are two valid uses of the word black. Neither invokes any association to skin colour, but you choose to. Am I banned from falling upon dark times, because some people also have dark skin?

No, and I don't think anybody is suggesting you should be banned or that it's a grievous sin to use such an analogy. The point is just that it's something which could conceivably be seen negatively in some circumstances and it's also only a small amount of work to adopt different language.

Please focus on material problems.