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

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#341

Post by interesthrow2 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #327

interesthrow2 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, who decides what is deemed "not inclusive" now? you? > So why not use it? What's the harm? The harm is you likes with your intimidation and harassment tactics on social media trying to force your morals and political beliefs on everyone else in every possible circle and the insane finger pointing at those who refuse to fall in line because they don't agree with your ideology. Antirez, author of redis has someth…

I don't know why you're strawmanning me into being responsible for every act of suppression by a person who claimed to be acting for social justice. I am not deeming anything any which way. I am just saying that there are obvious conceivable negative interpretations of the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" that don't exist with the terms "allowlist" and "blocklist". And the work required to change the language that y…

> I don't know why you're strawmanning me into being responsible for every act of suppression by a person who claimed to be acting for social justice

You are the one claiming "no harm done". I proved you wrong. Otherwise I would have absolutely no interest in that issue.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#342

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #320

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, that'd be the only use case for that platform, right? Maybe a better example would be if they explicitly told companies who joined the platform that they couldn't compete with Visa's core business, and then Mastercard signed up because they have a mobile payments division. Would Visa be justified in kicking them off?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#343

Post by TAForObvReasons » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #317

tpush wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

This was known for a very long time. The "Dumb fucks" comments were brought to the public attention many years ago. The problem is that Silicon Valley gave Facebook a pass on all of the ethical transgressions for years (most likely since they minted many millionaires and billionaires in the valley)

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#344

Post by chrisseaton » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #268

chrisseaton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think you'll find under the British constitution, and according to Erskine May, the definitive guide to Parliamentary practice, that it does. "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such res…

I think the consensus is that those powers are inoperable

https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.theweek.co.uk/93679/can-mps...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#345

Post by creaghpatr » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

spunker540 wrote: post #258

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.

I believe 99.99...% of interactions on Facebook are positive. They are friends and family keeping in touch, posting life updates, organizing events, hobby/support communities etc. Most ads are normal ads from legitimate businesses including a lot of small and local businesses who find it very valuable for reaching their customers and growing their business. The recent rhetoric and news coverage acts as if Facebook is…

>I believe 99.99...% of interactions on Facebook are positive

Ah, the old Sundar Pichai maneuver:

>"Yet, a little more than a week later, Google CEO Sundar Pichai attempted to invoke an engineering defense by arguing that Google would not need to censor 'well over 99 percent' of queries."

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#346

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

emiliobumachar wrote: post #197

fosco wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this seems like a hole in their design, additional access is being granted without the user really knowing what is going on and they are deliberately keeping the user out of the loop. at least, that is how I am interpreting it, it seems that the functionality of their software is not functioning in the 'spirit' of what it is suppose to be doing.

In essence, Android permissions system have (had?) a vulnerability that Facebook exploited, and Google is responsible to a small extent as the maintainer of the vulnerable software.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#347

Post by chrisseaton » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

timthorn wrote: post #318

chrisseaton wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ser…

People don’t think that ‘order’ actually has any effective legal power though.

https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Select-...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.theweek.co.uk/93679/can-mps...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#348

Post by chmod775 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #242

ysavir wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point overall, but we need to recognize here that the problem isn't Facebook being selective, it's Facebook being a monopoly.

Selectively using business intelligence data is what makes a company a 'monopoly' these days?

I suggest re-reading your parent comment because that's not what was said at all.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#349

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #329

kodablah wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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? This is a really important point. Political movements often attribute to malice that which i…

> Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system

Evil is only meaningful in the context of a value system.

Malice is will for things which are evil.

Valuing something positively is willing for it to transpire.

Valuing something negatively is seeing it as evil.

Valuing something positively that others value negatively is, therefore, exactly malice in the context of the others’ value system (it's not wrongly attributed to malice.)

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#350

Post by manfredo » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:24 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #238

manfredo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and p…

>> this is their users' data > No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Er, actually it is. Under GDPR, and under previous data protection rules that lacked meaningful enforcement, users own their data. Companies at most get to "borrow" and/or keep it safe for them. Alas, this fundamental fact seems to not have quite made it everywhere yet.. https://digitalguardian.com/blog/tackling-gdpr-challen…

I'm not finding where in the GDPR text the user is stated to be the owner. The text frequently refers to the user as the "data subject". Ownership is not mentioned. The article you link to claims that the EU resident owns the data, but never backs up this claim with references to the GDPR text.