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

311–320 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#311

Post by ryanwaggoner »

natch wrote: post #210

Just to underline the obvious point the lawmaker is making, perhaps if Zuckerberg would show up to hearings that lawmakers invite him to, then he would be able to provide the context that Facebook says is missing.

Translation: if you turn down our "invitation", we'll misuse our legal power to seize your internal documents and then publish them to embarrass you.

Accurate?

To be clear, I'm not saying that they can't seize and investigate or even punish if the law was broken. That's the job of government. But this just seems like a petty attempt to embarrass. However, I'm American and haven't been following the story closely, so I may be missing context.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#312

Post by altcognito »

Mahn wrote: post #299
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".

There's nothing that Facebook did here than any other company, in tech or otherwise, wouldn't have done. And for the record, Facebook did not "share data with Cambridge Analytica for shady research purposes". A rogue third party developer created one of those shitty quiz apps for Facebook, and then proceed to get users to signup for it; several million did, which allowed said developer to harvest data thanks to the v…

"A rogue third party developer"

We are all rogue third party developers, and clearly, the priority, much like most businesses is to make a profit, and the customers/ethics come second.

I love the fact that you get bent out of shape that Facebook didn't sell it though, it's a theme I've seen with Facebook employees: "But we didn't sell it!"

I'm not sure if they are lamenting the fact they didn't sell it but I sure as hell can tell what they give a damn about. If you want to hide under "anybody would have done it", lets take a trip down histories gravestones and figure out whether or not we should bother trying to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#313

Post by Inu »

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…

> One of Napoleon's great gifts was in compartmentalizing pieces of his life. His tumultuous and frankly soul-crushing personal life (which affected him deeply) with Josephine never got in the way of his military victories. I wonder if that's a good model, up-to-a-point for people and groups. With people, by compartmentalizing some unsavory perspective someone has, you have the ability to change it later on through discussion.

Also, the Napoleonic Wars killed 3 to 6 million people.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#314

Post by zjaffee »

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…

Over humanizing people is also a bad way to look at these things as it diminishes their contribution towards a more problematic group and class structure. While yes, most billionares are probably fine people by many individual metrics, the billionaire class can only exist by extracting value off the backs of others.

Facebook as an entity might be run by great people who love their families and support their communities, but the entity has done tons of very sketchy things and anyone who willingly or knowingly takes a part within that, especially for personal benefit is responsible for the actions of the group as a whole.

Humanity might transcend class and social status, but it doesn't excuse anything.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#315

Post by deogeo »

Mahn wrote: post #299
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".

There's nothing that Facebook did here than any other company, in tech or otherwise, wouldn't have done. And for the record, Facebook did not "share data with Cambridge Analytica for shady research purposes". A rogue third party developer created one of those shitty quiz apps for Facebook, and then proceed to get users to signup for it; several million did, which allowed said developer to harvest data thanks to the v…

> There's nothing that Facebook did here than any other company, in tech or otherwise, wouldn't have done.

Dubious, but still good point. Meaning legislation to force companies to behave slightly less unethically is all the more direly needed.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#316

Post by joering2 »

tpush wrote: post #4
Trill-I-Am wrote: post #2

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

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…

Is that for real? I remember Mr. Zuckerberg said their mission is to connect the world together.

Can you help me understand how you make world smaller place and connecting people by "shut down their friends API access" ?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#317

Post by raverbashing »

tpush wrote: post #4
Trill-I-Am wrote: post #2

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

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…

It's official, Mark Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. As in "we don't care about ethics"

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#318

Post by timthorn »

chrisseaton wrote: post #184
steve_gh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmli...:

"If a Select Committee wishes to require the attendance of a witness, an informal request is issued. If the witness is unwilling, a period of negotiation usually follows. If it is clear that the witness is not willing to attend, and the Committee wishes to insist, an order for attendance is made by the Committee, signed by the Chair, and then served upon the witness by the Serjeant at Arms or the Serjeant’s representative."

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#319

Post by untog »

e40 wrote: post #177
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.

> These people will suffocate innovation just to win. I don't like Zuck, but come on, you just described every CEO in America, that when they have a choice they will do this.

Yes. Which is bad!

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#320

Post by notahacker »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #294
notahacker wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is suggesting everyone has a right to Facebook or any other company's data (just like nobody seriously suggested MS shouldn't be able to impose any restrictions on OEM Windows installations). They're suggesting that if a company sets itself up as a provider of data and other platform services to encourage everyone else in the market to become dependent upon it then selectively pulls the plug on the most succes…

I definitely see those arguments being made (in this thread, in fact), but that may not be the argument you're making. I think the issue I have is with the idea that Facebook is successful, and therefore can no longer prevent their competitors from blatantly taking advantage of them. But I'm not sure where to draw the line. If Visa and Mastercard decided for whatever reason that they wanted to kill some small banking…

I'd be pretty concerned if Visa introduced a Visa Mobile Payments platform and withdrew functionality from the fastest growing payment apps because the mobile payments sector broadly competes with the credit card sector. I think that's a closer analogy than either of your examples
Post reply on HN