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

My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 269 posts

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#201

Post by tinco »

yawnr wrote: post #43
lowkey_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

My question is what constitutes a public post? I feel like that definition is evolving. Is a WhatsApp group with 1k members spreading disinformation still a private message?

As far as I know, legally speaking it would be a private message if the members were all members of a legal entity like a business. I.e. subject of this HN article is a private message to the Facebook organisation which clearly has over 1000 members.

I also think legally, but this may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, a message to one thousand people that you do not know personally and you are not in an organisation with, or that organisation has an open access policy (even if there's an entrance fee) would be a public message.

Of course, IANAL and just learned this from reading the news.

More interestingly however, is what Facebook or other media should consider public. In my opinion a WhatsApp group with 1k members should not be considered public, even if there's absolutely no bar to entry. Private companies should have no business policing private communities. If they've got concerns they should invite law enforcement to decide if there's any laws that are being broken.

The moment when communication becomes public is when the communication goes outside the boundaries of the group. If my antivax aunt posts an edutainment video about how vaccinations cause autism and it is clear that it is misinformation, and that edutainment video is not just in her group of weirdo's, but actually shared on her public timeline, in my opinion Facebook should definitely come down with the ban hammer. There should be a little "report" flag that I'll use to snitch on my aunt. Even if it's on her "friends & family" timeline I wouldn't consider it private for the purpose of culling misinformation. She should specifically select a group of people who have self-selected to be in that group for it to be considered a private message.

Also, if a private group on a platform like Facebook/Whatsapp has members that are underage, and not all members are in a complete graph of direct friends/family, Facebook should require that group to have active moderation that conforms to some sort of platform wide code of conduct.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#202

Post by himinlomax »

bostonsre wrote: post #101
himinlomax wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done. As an engineer, I'm in a better position to understand what the f is going on regarding encryption and, say, nuclear power than most people. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. > It is a massive country with many opposing viewpoints. World.…

> As an engineer, I'm in a better position to understand what the f is going on regarding encryption and, say, nuclear power than most people. Yes, you are an engineer and understand the implementation details and potential side effects, but what about the opposing viewpoints like those from law enforcement? Are you an expert in law enforcement? Your viewpoints should trump theirs why exactly? You really don't think…

> but what about the opposing viewpoints like those from law enforcement?

You're right, I may be ignorant of the issues that support the need for weakening encryption, but the fact is that I can evaluate the other side of the equation. And if the side pushing against encryption is making terrible arguments, I can see how terrible they objectively are.

> Do nuclear scientists define nuclear energy policies or do they provide advice to those that define them?

Similar thing: the arguments against nuclear power are idiotic and typically plain wrong and based on irrational appeals to fear.

Just like the previous issue, if a decision has to be made, it has to balance the pros and cons. Even if I can only properly evaluate only one side of the equation and find it lacking, I can certainly have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the choice presented. And that's one side more than most people can grasp.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#203

Post by s17n »

fareesh wrote: post #189
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand are whistleblowers to the American public against the U.S. government. On the other hand, a whistleblower to the American public and U.S. government. Not sure why one would expect them to be received similarly.

Would the judiciary (branch of government) consider Haugen to be in violation of any NDAs that she had with Facebook?

In general, leaking a company's secrets is going to be a civil matter, and to the extent that it's a criminal case a prosecutor would be very unlikely to press charges if the company isn't asking them to. On the other hand leaking classified government secrets is always a criminal matter and charges are almost always going to be pressed.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#204

Post by munificent »

yodsanklai wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

> I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

I don't care what they look like as long as there's hundreds of them all on relatively equal footing.

I firmly believe that most of the major problems facing society today are not caused by any features of particular companies, but by the consolidation of power in a very small number of them.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#205

Post by burnished »

fareesh wrote: post #192
helen___keller wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. A…

Do you realize that I am advocating for Assange, who exposed the Bush administration. Why is it only a political dig if it's aimed at Clinton?

Because some nut, clutching their gun, waking up from a nightmare screaming "Hilary!" is a meme at this point. Bringing it up out of nowhere seems to mark tribal membership more than anything else. If it was just the first thing that came to mind then you should probably know (so I will tell you) that 'the emails' have become something of a loaded topic, what with getting mostly used as a rallying cry these days.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#206

Post by burnished »

tablespoon wrote: post #154

> The world is a far less bad place than people credit. The impact of speech is still not the same as that of sticks and stones, and guns, knives, or fists must still be wielded by people, not Youtube videos. Generations have been wrongly certain that children needed legislation to keep them safe from the evils of crystal-set radios, comic books, video nasties, satanism, “dungeons & dragons”, and Kate Moss’ “heroin c…

Yeah. Invoking sticks and stones and the satanic panic but seemingly not addressing genocide enabled by the platform seems.. bad.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#207

Post by ghaff »

Tainnor wrote: post #73
ghaff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define social networks? Should email mailing lists not exist either because those are absolutely social networks in a way as were BBS systems?

Not OP, but IMHO, the danger comes from the algorithms which lead to "engaging" content being pushed aggressively to everyone. "Engaging" can mean cat videos or "incredible looking food", but it means divisive, partisan, insincere and outright dangerous more often than not. Inasmuch as a "social network" is just people signing up to talk about certain topics and that's it, I don't have a problem with it. Internet for…

I take your point. But I would need more convincing that just getting rid of algorithms/recommendations/etc. would suddenly make all the problems go away.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#208

Post by helen___keller »

fareesh wrote: post #192
helen___keller wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. A…

Do you realize that I am advocating for Assange, who exposed the Bush administration. Why is it only a political dig if it's aimed at Clinton?

Yes, your post is otherwise advocating for whistleblowers, which is on topic and makes sense to discuss.

Clinton's email server is not a whistleblower. Clinton is not a whistleblower. The FBI is not a whistleblower. Your sentence "according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended" does not relate to whistleblowers in any way. What is does do is signal a political flag to other individuals. This sort of political signalling does not contribute to the conversation about whistleblowers and ultimately is not productive.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#209

Post by nonameiguess »

fareesh wrote: post #6

On the popularity of Haugen: I find it amusing how your government treats a whistleblower who is promoting government control over social media, vs the way your government treats a whistleblower who leaks evidence of government spying and abuse. The fact that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are treated the way they are (and the earlier treatment of Manning) gives the US government zero credibility on press freedom,…

For better or worse, there are different prescribed legal procedures with their own protections for whistleblowing that involves classified information. You're supposed to leak that to Congressional oversight committees with security clearances, not the press. There is an obvious weakness here if you don't trust Congress itself, but that is still the law.

As for Clinton, the issue there as I understand it isn't so much "intended harm." There are simply different consequences for intentional versus unintentional data spills.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#210

Post by junon »

ghaff wrote: post #207
Tainnor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but IMHO, the danger comes from the algorithms which lead to "engaging" content being pushed aggressively to everyone. "Engaging" can mean cat videos or "incredible looking food", but it means divisive, partisan, insincere and outright dangerous more often than not. Inasmuch as a "social network" is just people signing up to talk about certain topics and that's it, I don't have a problem with it. Internet for…

I take your point. But I would need more convincing that just getting rid of algorithms/recommendations/etc. would suddenly make all the problems go away.

Another part of the problem is size. Older communities were miniscule compared to the billions of users each platform has now.
Post reply on HN