231–240 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still believe it’s for advertising?
You don't? Please elaborate.
Facebook is not a small entity, they have overthrown governments and caused civil wars in third countries already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very narrow view of human psychology. How do you reconcile this opinion with the knowledge that copycat crime¹ occurs. One would imagine that an adult with critical thinking skills ought be able to observe that some people are easily influenced at least some of the time . Elsewise we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime
The problem with that is that if you set the standards to 'can cause someone to commit bad things' that can apply to literally everything. Plenty of reactionary assholes have been triggered to violence by disparaged groups having the gall to think of themselves as equals or transgress their taboos against things like interracial marriages. Heck, under that standard we should ban irrational numbers because they caused…
It does seem reasonable that there might be scope for regulation at least in the form of viewing guidelines.
I don’t know what that would look like in practice.
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...
"An identity is the set of meanings that define who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a unique person. For example, individuals have meanings that they apply to themselves when they are a student, worker, spouse, or parent (these are roles they occupy), when they are a member of a fraternity, when they belong to the Democratic Party, when they are Latino (these are memberships in particular groups), or when they claim they are outgoing individuals or moral persons (these are personal characteristics that identify themselves as unique persons). People possess multiple identities because they occupy multiple roles, are members of multiple groups, and claim multiple personal characteristics, yet the meanings of these identities are shared by members of society. Identity theory seeks to explain the specific meanings that individuals have for the multiple identities they claim; how these identities relate to one another for any one person; how their identities influence their behavior, thoughts, and feelings or emotions; and how their identities tie them in to society at large." - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…
"...indiscriminately selling user data..." That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts. Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not h…
Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.
When outside observers say something, they are the guardians of the people. When zuckerberg says the same thing (or even a stronger pro-regulation stance) he's the devil.
Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.
When outside observers say something, they are the guardians of the people. When zuckerberg says the same thing (or even a stronger pro-regulation stance) he's the devil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Election integrity is a media hysteria. Nobody is forcing anyone to vote in a particular way. I think transparency is a real issue - knowing who is funding those adverts and campaigns and putting controls on campaign spending is important. Sure, no-one is forcing you to vote a particular way. But if they can control what you see, here and know about an issue, they don't need to force you - do they?
> knowing who is funding those adverts and campaigns and putting controls on campaign spending is important. If I understand you correctly, you are advocating for anti-privacy by _forcing_ advertisers into "transparency"? > putting controls on campaign spending is important That sounds dangerous. How would you feel if we put some campaign spending controls on campaigns you _agree_ with and promote? Controlling campai…
So, while I appreciate your "Americans aren't poor, they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires" version of equality for the farce it is, I'd appreciate it if you tried mangling the truth somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still believe it’s for advertising?
You don't? Please elaborate.
However, FB needs a moot around their castle, so it acts via third parties, such as Cambridge Analytica.
And even if FB would not engage in large scale behavioral influencing, then through US law, various three letter agencies can force FB to hand over the data, all the while muting the company to disclose such practices.