The words "Facebook" and "integrity" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
161–170 of 252 posts
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#162As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large, but the company is finding it very difficult to do The Right Thing, because it would reduce future revenue growth, shrink long-term profitability, and hurt the company's competitive standing against the many other companies that are trying to eat Facebook's lunch every day. In the extreme, Facebook's choic…
>Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large I am utterly, completely bewildered at how one could look at Facebook's behavior and come to this conclusion.
He must be a Facebook employee that ate the pudding.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find it now, but I remember a story from somebody in the Lean Manufacturing world about a place that was having safety problems, so they appointed somebody Safety Director. This signaled to everybody that safety was that one guy's problem, not theirs. Accidents went up further and stayed up until they got rid of the Safety Directory position and made everybody responsible for safety. That resonated for me bec…
This story explains why every workplace safety exam I ever took had at least one question similar to "who is responsible for fire/machine/... safety" where the only correct answer was "everyone".
This goes for computer security as well, but in practice without at least a voice in the management security will get axed on every turn because it is seen as all cost without benefit to the company. This is changing slowly, mostly on account of the GDPR, but it is still the prevailing view.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would choose to use my skills working for a different company in a different industry. If Zuckerberg really had a problem with what Facebook was doing, but didn’t feel he could ethically risk the company’s growth and financial performance by changing its direction, he could quit and sell all his shares. He might take a financial hit, but he would still be one of the world’s richest people.
> If Zuckerberg really had a problem with what Facebook was doing, but didn’t feel he could ethically risk the company’s growth and financial performance by changing its direction, he could quit and sell all his shares. He might take a financial hit, but he would still be one of the world’s richest people. He is one of the world's richest people. He seems to have concern (or at least feigns it) for the problems Faceb…
If he’s concerned about it why would he pick a successor that doesn’t share his concerns? He still controls the company.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#165https://twitter.com/robleathern/status/1345133167833997317?s... His own statement
It’s so gauche and embarrassing to see a serious executive announcing a principled career change through Twitter. “Tweet 6/12” ... a red flag should go up somewhere. Can you not buy a domain and link a short paragraph? This isn’t an issue related to Threader or visual reconstruction of tweets. Rather, how did society get to a place like this? It’s bananas.
you know your president announces anything, including firing people, over twitter right :D?
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, except that we don't have to imagine anything. If Facebook were to disappear today, there already exist many companies with similar business models willing to take its place. Some more willing to cross the line than Facebook.
This is the critical point virtually all criticism of Facebook often fails to address. Sure, you could regulate to death/kill Facebook tomorrow with legislation in country X. All that happens is a clone launches immediately overnight from a country with less onerous regulation, one that anglosphere legal systems will have even less direct control over than the Facebook we have today. FB, for all its flaws, is at leas…
Regulations are never for particular companies, that would be legally untenable. Whatever regulation a country comes up with for Facebook will also affect any other company trying to get into their footsteps. Regulation is the only way to prevent companies from abusing their positions of power. The idea is illusory that they would do it voluntarily even if they could make a profit. Some of them might under some leadership, but not in general and not all of them.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large
Imagine yourself as the CEO of a manufacturer that pollutes rivers, and you sincerely want to stop polluting, but if you stop polluting, the company's costs would increase to the point it would no longer be able to compete against all the other companies that continue polluting -- and they're trying to eat your lunch you every day. So, if you stop polluting you would quickly lose relevance, be forced to shut down pla…
Agressively lobby for criminal penalties (as in all the CXOs go to prison) for any company that continues to pollute after , while loudly telling everyone that you will stop polluting as soon as your competitors are forced to do likewise.
Please cite any privacy legislation supported by Facebook/Zuckerberg under which CEOs or other responsible parties (not disposable middle managers) actually end up in prison (not pittance fines) for violations.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk , they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk. If I may us…
> Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. ... They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk.
I don't understand how, given this, you could possibly sincerely open your original post with
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large
I can't tell what your position is. Your opening sentence sounds like you think that Facebook should be given the benefit of the doubt because they mean well, when what the rest of what you're saying is that Facebook needs to have costs imposed on it in order to enable it to improve its behaviour
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, GDPR is a step in the direction. Many websites, and by extension, people seem to think that you comply by 'gdpr' by putting up a stupid cookie banner. But the real compliance is not storing PII, then you don't even need a cookie bar!
Asking companies not to retain PII is like asking a crack addict to please ignore the crack pipe and torch while you step out for an hour. The only solution is to make PII radioactive. Tax it. Burn companies that abuse it or leak it to the ground. HIPAA is a fucking nightmare but companies still figure it out:
GDPR is mostly that; the penalties for data breaches are essentially a tax on PII. GDPR also restricts how you can process data and the user should always be informed and has the right to object.
The problem is that the GDPR is not being enforced seriously.
Re: Facebook's advertising integrity chief leaves company
#170As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large, but the company is finding it very difficult to do The Right Thing, because it would reduce future revenue growth, shrink long-term profitability, and hurt the company's competitive standing against the many other companies that are trying to eat Facebook's lunch every day. In the extreme, Facebook's choic…
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
> Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit
My impression was that on Day 1 it was really just to rate the attractiveness of the coeds at Harvard.