11–20 of 201 posts
It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.
Who governs information and speech online? Washington DC or Silicon Valley?
It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.
It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.
To do what? What does that mean?
And they have the face to even WRITE IT!
Just say no.
This seems like a pretty big stretch.
Facebook can get Zuck'ed ... just another corrupt, bullsh!tter company. If you work there, you've sold your soul for cr@ppy smiles around the food counter or the drinks cooler ... but your life is being zucked dry. I pity you.
I don't understand what the researchers violated - it looks like they didn't sign the FB's EULA, nor did they perform anything resembling CFAA violation. It is the FB users who signed the EULA and use "unapproved" user-agent to access FB services and to voluntarily share the data (isn't FB a sharing platform btw?) in "unapproved" way. Thus FB should go after the real violators - their users. I wonder why FB didn't do…
It's well within their rights as a private company, right? We need to have a serious discussion about the power these FAANGs are exerting and we need to stop making excuses for them.
Yes, the FAANGs are very close to being public utilities, and therefore deserve a special treatment.
“Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”