371–380 of 507 posts
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.
If you feed your family with your left hand, there is indeed shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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…
Does anyone have an explanation as to why parent is downvoted? Is the information they presented incorrect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. It's like buying a space on the wall to advertise inside the all you can eat restaurant. The restaurant isn't telling you who goes into the restaurant. They're just selling you access to those people through that ad. ----- The other problem, the Cambridge Analytica problem, is a bit different. It's like saying that the restaurant requires you to tell them your name and other personal information in order…
I think "giving information about friends" is kind of a stretch. Facebook has that information. Clicking something so Facebook does something with it isn't quite the same as, say, entering all that info into a text field. Maybe it is legally, but morally, from a commen sense perspective, FB gives the info out. Allowing API access is giving info. We all know how servers work. You can't "take" something, it always gets…
I'm also just clarifying what happened, because people don't seem to understand how any of it works. "Facebook sells your data" is very far from reality, and yet the reality can be considered just as bad.
Meanwhile, at the Growth Team™ office: "I think implanting these chips into our customer's brain is high risk, but we're going to charge ahead anyway".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what precedent is that? The idea that companies aren't above the law? That's a precedent I wish was more enforced. I'm proud of my parliament today (and it's not often I can say that), even if in other parts they're tearing themselves apart.
What laws did Facebook break that warranted seizing and publishing internal documents?
1. In the US, the president (executive) can declassify any classified information, the DOJ or judiciary may publicize (discovered) internal documents for trials/indictments before guilt is established (note: IANAL). In the UK, Parliament is supreme to the executive and judiciary.
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…
That said, the UK has a very weak conceptualisation of separation of powers, thanks to parliamentary supremacy.
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…
thanks to the very permissive APIs that Facebook provided
Why did they do this?
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…
>>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
The only reliable method for evaluating someone’s values is to assess the choices they make. What values do their actions suggest? Do these choices affect your ability to trust these people?
I fundamentally disagree that it dehumanizes to do this, and I also fundamentally disagree that anyone intends to dehumanize them with this approach. I find it troubling that anyone expresses such a black and white assessment of people trying to determine where others should fit in the herd.
Put another way:
the only way to judge someone’s ethics is by evaluating their action and comparing it against their words.
> "As you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the 'read call log' permission... This is a pretty high-risk thing to do from a PR perspective but it appears that the growth team will charge ahead and do it." Meanwhile, at the Growth Team™ office: "I think implanting these chips into our customer's brain is high risk, but w…
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…
Compartmentalization is part of the problem, not the solution. It's why some people can exploit and hurt a hundred thousand other human beings in the morning, enjoy their lunch break, fuck up the environment a bit more in the afternoon, and come home to a happy evening with their spouse. We shouldn't be encouraging more people to separate their private happiness from their interactions with society.
> ... in groups: if everyone good leaves organizations because they're "bad," well, those organizations will just be filled with the worst of us soon enough.
The hope is that if enough people leave, the organization won't be able to keep functioning. Or, if it survives and becomes an evil-people-filled cesspool, it'll be easier to direct regulatory actions against it and just shut it down.
Also, Napoleon was famous, but not exactly a paragon of morality.