Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 308 posts

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#251

Post by georgeecollins »

stickfigure wrote: post #122
loudmax wrote: post #108

Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but instead Google just wanted their own silo. What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the w…

Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information? That is literally what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"? You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have access. You cannot have both.

The problem is that Facebook controlled access to the API, not users. Given me the ability to control access to my social network information could be a good idea.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#252

Post by stcredzero »

stickfigure wrote: post #122
loudmax wrote: post #108

Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but instead Google just wanted their own silo. What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the w…

Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information? That is literally what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"? You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have access. You cannot have both.

The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"?

The implicit assumption here is that the only people who can control your data are big, centralized organizations. Instead of big companies making little people subject to DRM, what if we turned it on its head and gave control to the people? What if we made big companies subject to Digital Human Rights Management? Basically, we legislate that social media, tech companies, and government organizations use Trusted Execution engines to handle private/personal data, and the user gets the keys and gets to revoke access from those organizations.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#253

Post by georgeecollins »

stickfigure wrote: post #225
tremon wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds to me like a backwards argument. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revolved around unsanctioned access to data. I don't think the premise of having an API was the problem, it was the lack of transparency and control offered to Facebook's users.

unsanctioned access to data You misunderstand what happened. 1) Users installed a quiz app, 2) Users explicitly accepted a permission dialog that included "information about your friends" , 3) The quiz app saved this data, 4) Cambridge Analytica bought the app (and data). If CA got your data, it's because one of your friends sanctioned the critical link in this chain. Facebook at least provided this level of security…

I think you are taking an example of a very dark pattern to say that we can't come up with reasonable rules.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#254

Post by johannes1234321 »

georgeecollins wrote: post #251
stickfigure wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information? That is literally what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"? You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have access. You cannot have both.

The problem is that Facebook controlled access to the API, not users. Given me the ability to control access to my social network information could be a good idea.

In the Cambridge Analytica Case users where asked "do you want to share your data with that Game/quiz?" And users agreed. For average users understanding that control is hard, especially if people with bad objects are on the other side.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#257

Post by swirepe »

rzmds wrote: post #240
guymcgwire wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And let's not forget the controversy from just five months ago where the nytimes reported (and dozens of other media outlets blindly re-reported) that facebook allowed companies like spotify, netflix, and the royal bank of canada to read, write, and delete our private messages. All because the nytimes's tech reporters don't understand how an API works. Or maybe they do, but the nuance doesn't fit with their current a…

The mass media is there to damage Facebook as much as they can, because Facebook is taking them out of business. Never forget that.

What?

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#258

Post by basch »

c0vfefe wrote: post #128
basetop wrote: post #19

Why just facebook? Why not Amazon, Google, JPM, Disney, etc? "Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and powerful that it threatens our democracy." "threatens our democracy". I've heard this talking point so much that it has no meaning any longer. It's just another of the oft-repeated talking point created by PR firms as part of a propaganda campaign. If facebook is truly that powerful tha…

Any entity sufficiently large to lobby legislators or offer campaign donations can threaten democracy more directly, and in fact it happens every day.

but the "threatens democracy here" is equivalent to "but stupid and malicious people have a megaphone, and they are shouting things I dont want them to be shouting. dumb people are listening and i dont want them to be allowed to listen."

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#259

Post by thallavajhula »

While I agree with most of what Chris has said in the video (& the article), it's hard for me to consider his intentions as purely objective.

Chris Hughes has always been a democrat and has been part of Obama campaign and endorsed Hillary. Democrat leaders blame Facebook for how much it has contributed to their loss in the 2016 elections. To me, all of this makes sense. But, Chris being on the side of the democrats and coming up with these points, IMHO, makes it less objective. This also seems like a good time to come up with something like this, especially, when the candidates from both the wings have begun campaigning for 2020.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#260

Post by someluccc »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #121
loudmax wrote: post #108

Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but instead Google just wanted their own silo. What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the w…

Another example: what if cell phone carriers only let you talk / text with people on the same carrier network? Suddenly everyone would need to buy T-Mobile, or Verizon, or Sprint, just to talk to one another. Or carry 4 different sim cards, similar to having multiple accounts. Sounds terrible? Good. That's what Facebook is doing now.

Except it takes 30 seconds and it’s free to open a facebook account. You can even use messenger without having a facebook profile.
Post reply on HN