331–340 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes me wonder if a confidentiality agreement should ever include sharing that information with the government? Maybe NDAs from publicly traded companies should always exempt sharing with elected officials?
Speech and debate clause.
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.
Seizing documents for a valid inquiry is one thing. But does that follow that publishing them is OK too? From the outside, it looks like these politicians are frustrated that a foreign CEO ignored their demand to appear before them (because he has no legal obligation to do so), and have decided to retaliate by releasing embarrassing private internal documents obtained during an investigation in the hopes that Faceboo…
Personally, given the level of harm Facebook has helped to inflict on the world these last 2-3 years, yeah, I reckon I'm perfectly happy with people inflicting harm on the corporation, probably even to the point of ruination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
fb.js is Facebook’s standard JS base, with things like polyfills/ponyfills to ensure certain features in a browser environment. It’s imported by React, Relay, etc. So this might be what you’re seeing, but normally it’s included in a precompiled JS application bundle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 the world simpler. Correct. But we're not talking about people here, we're talking about a corporate entity as a whole. It's a bit more complex than a person. It has an incent…
> Nice spin on it, but Facebook is still a bad actor (despite what you say). This needs to be a conclusion, not a premise. I do not have a firm belief about whether or not this is true, but I keep seeing people list bad things about FB and draw a straight line to “thus it is evil”. Ideally, we would list the good/bad it does and assign weights to these points to determine if it is net harmful. I want to be convinced,…
Conducting psychology experiments on people without their consent (or awareness of it)
Documented evidence that Facebook as it is now decreases people's quality of life, but they don't want to mess with their formula because that's what brings the dollars in.
Theres many more. But these two are the biggest I can think of off the top my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 the world simpler. Correct. But we're not talking about people here, we're talking about a corporate entity as a whole. It's a bit more complex than a person. It has an incent…
> Nice spin on it, but Facebook is still a bad actor (despite what you say). This needs to be a conclusion, not a premise. I do not have a firm belief about whether or not this is true, but I keep seeing people list bad things about FB and draw a straight line to “thus it is evil”. Ideally, we would list the good/bad it does and assign weights to these points to determine if it is net harmful. I want to be convinced,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think a lot of people who hate Facebook just have a hard time believing that most people just don't care about the same things you do, or to the same degree. They're still on Facebook and Instagram and Whatsapp because they see the world differently from you.
I think Facebook is terrible. So I don't use it. I have a choice. These same MPs would likely howl in fury if their secret communications were stolen and published by an entity like Wikileaks (for example). Be careful what you wish for. Of course the difference here is that one is "legal".
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…
At best it's invisible, at worst it just kicks people out with no recourse, because some troll reported them, and because they're not a FB employee or a celebrity. These people are people, too. You barge into the public and drag it onto your platform, and then you don't just dehumanize people on it, you completely remove them. The rest either is friend or not friend, blocked or not blocked, posts are liked or not liked. Yes, it's a very poor model -- don't assume everybody else is using it, too.
> It makes me really happy to see my friends thriving.
That's the equivalent of "it's fun with friends" for game reviews. Every multiplayer game has that. Every site that allows sharing of photos and text has that. Because people have that.
> With people, by compartmentalizing some unsavory perspective someone has, you have the ability to change it later on through discussion.
When later? When was Facebook ever up for candid discussion? How come you blame it on those who, in absence of any say, ever, now think badly of Facebook?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> vindictive government raiding What? OP literally just described how skipping a request for info is comparable to skipping a court summons in the US. If you skip a court summons 4 times, the government comes after you. How is this situation different? > publishing This certainly does raise questions. > government's ideals Investigating companies who might be implicit in crimes? (Gov is investigatng fake news, most o…
> If you skip a court summons 4 times, the government comes after you. How is this situation different? They didn't come after Facebook to obtain the documents. They went after someone who was suing Facebook and who was visiting England, and threatened him with jail unless he stole Facebook documents for them (which he had restricted access to as part of the discovery processes of his lawsuit against Facebook).
If Zuck had given evidence it would be in the public domain. He didn't, they have gained access to the documents, and are putting the bits they believe relevant to their inquiry into the public domain.
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…