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

Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 335 posts

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#291

Post by ahahahahah »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #17

I don't know why my opinion is so out of the mainstream but I really think it's good that people's information is used vs not used... I think it's a great boon for ads to become more relevant instead of less relevant. Wasting time looking at ads that aren't for me sucks, it's much better if they could actually improve my life. Literally think making children have less relevant ads is doing them harm.

Not only that, affordable effective ad targeting makes niche businesses more viable. It's really great to see a business that provides a widget or a service that I particularly value much more than the mainstream does. Those businesses are often only possible due to the effectiveness of this targeted advertising.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#292

Post by ahahahahah »

c-fe wrote: post #23
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #17

I don't know why my opinion is so out of the mainstream but I really think it's good that people's information is used vs not used... I think it's a great boon for ads to become more relevant instead of less relevant. Wasting time looking at ads that aren't for me sucks, it's much better if they could actually improve my life. Literally think making children have less relevant ads is doing them harm.

Ads, targeted ones even more so, make you buy things you don’t need. If you need them, you would go out of your way to buy them without requiring an ad manipulating you.

There's almost nothing that people need. The vast majority of my spending is on things I want, not need. I get value from spending on those things.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#294

Post by surgical_fire »

jonathankoren wrote: post #284
optymizer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? You can fork the code and go nuts. There's an open source license attached to the code. It's the definition of free and open source code. Jesus we're getting into demented territory here.

There’s a big difference between theory and practice though. If there’s not actually a community of developers, then the project dies. We’ve all seen fauxpen source projects close up shop immediately after their corporate developer deems them useless. Or better yet, actively reject all external contributions.

Can people still fork the project and move it forward?

If they can do it, it's OSS through and through.

If the company decides to withdraw support and the project dies, it's not the fault of the company. The community was just not interested in embracing it.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#295

Post by RangerScience »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #265
RangerScience wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not GP - While I think your question is polite and otherwise undeserving of a downvote, I don’t think it’s a fair question. I don’t read GP as defending Meta, and I think there’s substantial problems that arise if pointing out good things equates to defending associated bad things. IMHO it’s the strict inverse of disallowing pointing out the bad things within otherwise good things (afaik, a main component of toxic po…

I’m not sure I follow the last point but you are of course correct that the question itself is based on the premise that Meta is under scrutiny and the social “state” for lack of a better term (think state and transition) is “on public trial.” So in that sense, yes it’s a loaded question, however I think it’s a valid contextual assumption given the context of the article and comments.

> (think state and transition)

I completely don't follow this - I think you're referencing something I'm unfamiliar with?

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#296

Post by ZephyrP »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #280
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Children were put to work in the coalmines since 1700's and dying of blacklung. Somehow society has survived. In medieval times you could rape children, and suffer no consequences. There was no age of concent. Somehow society has survived. Feudal lord had the right to fuck your wife before you, and take her virginity, somehow society has survived. Nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, somehow society has survived. 1/3…

This isn't to refute your overarching point, but even the oldest of stories, the 'Epic of Gilgamesh', begins with the titular character accused of not "leaving maidens to their warriors", leading the gods (and people) of Ur to try to end his reign. I think the story makes it clear - this behavior was totally unacceptable for a king, even in what the Sumerians considered "those ancient days, when bread had been tasted for the first time".

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#297

Post by callalex »

Brystephor wrote: post #147
0xB31B1B wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, kids are bombarded with ads for sugary cereals and candy and we have a huge childhood obesity problem.

So to reverse this, if kids were shown advertisements about vegetables and gyms or other physical activities, then there would be no child obesity?

Yes. In most American supermarkets, there are packages of fruit and carrots with Disney characters on them. Parents buy them because it works.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#298

Post by callalex »

Lord_Baltimore wrote: post #256
p0pcult wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be allowed to opt others in, especially those under the age of legally informed consent, to brainwashing.

Yeah, I don't think you should be able to opt children into atheistic teaching.

Can you define “atheistic teaching”?

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#299

Post by AndrewKemendo »

RangerScience wrote: post #295
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I follow the last point but you are of course correct that the question itself is based on the premise that Meta is under scrutiny and the social “state” for lack of a better term (think state and transition) is “on public trial.” So in that sense, yes it’s a loaded question, however I think it’s a valid contextual assumption given the context of the article and comments.

> (think state and transition) I completely don't follow this - I think you're referencing something I'm unfamiliar with?

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1501...

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#300

Post by keeganpoppen »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #255
wirthjason wrote: post #16

Since there is bound to be a lot of Facebook bashing I’ll point out that they occasionally do some good. In the case of software they can be good stewards of FOSS. I listened to this CoRecursive episode about the history of Zstandard compression algorithm and how FB allowed the author, Yann Collet, to fully open source it while other companies wanted to keep it proprietary. https://corecursive.com/data-compression-ya…

I’m earnestly curious, what do you think is the root of your reaction or desire or instinct to defend Meta?

because being unquestioningly critical is as anathema to truth-seeking as being unquestioningly supportive?
Post reply on HN