31–40 of 205 posts
> With most of the partnerships, Mr. Satterfield said, the F.T.C. agreement did not require the social network to secure users’ consent before sharing data because Facebook considered the partners extensions of itself — service providers that allowed users to interact with their Facebook friends. Wow, this seems like yet another contortion to get out of asking the user what they want.
“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patien…
> Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?
“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patien…
Address book import and triangle closing drives the most PYMK features across every social network. It's a gold mine, and that's why everything wants it.
“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patien…
> to read, write and delete users’ private messages I wonder if the delete permission was by accident or whether these companies were actively deleting private messages - craziness.
“Among the revelations was that Facebook obtained data from multiple partners for a controversial friend-suggestion tool called “People You May Know.” The feature, introduced in 2008, continues even though some Facebook users have objected to it, unsettled by its knowledge of their real-world relationships. Gizmodo and other news outlets have reported cases of the tool’s recommending friend connections between patien…
One possibility would be that Facebook users were supposed to be able to read, write, and delete their own chat messages via custom chat clients built by Spotify, Netflix, and so on. If so, the New York Times is throwing shade on Facebook basically for not being enough of a walled garden. I hope their journalists are not that confused?
Oh hey, would you look at that: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messeng...
It was only a few weeks ago that people were arguing that it was anti-competitive for Facebook not to share data with other companies.
So yes, it is anti-competitive for Facebook to block access against the explicit wishes of its users. But it’s also despicable to sell user data to whomever without asking permission first. It’s pretty obvious from Facebook’s actions that they consider it their data, not your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
Why would RBC even expose themselves to this liability? What was the point? With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?
Would MZ ever face criminal charges?
> Would MZ ever face criminal charges? He's lied to Congress. He's lied to half of Europe. (Or blown them off.) He's knowingly directed the violation of a federal consent decree and several EU directives. He presides over a platform profiting from mass atrocities in multiple countries. There's plenty to go after him with. The only things protecting him are his standing and lack of unexpected criminality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Royal Bank of Canada to read, write and delete users’ private messages, and to see all participants on a thread There's a settlement out there for anyone with a Facebook account who was turned down for a loan by RBC. No chance RBC wants its dirty laundry aired in a Fair Housing suit.
Why would RBC even expose themselves to this liability? What was the point? With every single one of these companies I am...baffled, that anyone thought this was a good idea, but in this situation especially it makes zero sense. All that liability for what possible upside?