Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#11

Post by snarf » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 9:26 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #6

snarf wrote: post #4

Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.

> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Facebook fired its "news curators" in response to criticism of it suppressing "news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential 'trending' news section" [1]. This happened in May of last year. [1] http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...

Right, in an effort not to appear as though they are editorializing legitimate news stories for one side or the other via what appears in the trending news section, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Fake news is not legitimate news. It's a form of spam. They did nothing to remove this spam once they got rid of the human editors. So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Now they want to use automated methods to police your private messages when they couldn't be bothered to figure out an automated method to remove spam from their trending news section when it really mattered.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#12

Post by SeanDav » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 9:30 AM UTC

It is quite simple, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product and even if you are paying in some cases. This is well known. Also well known, is expect no privacy online.

Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted services, wherever they can.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#13

Post by mcbits » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 9:54 AM UTC

snarf wrote: post #4

Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.

The policing of private messages is not new or sudden. Facebook has censored "offensive" (yet legal) private messages for years. One can assume they also already detect and report criminal activity to some degree. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to shine the spotlight on this practice.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#14

Post by lostlogin » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 9:58 AM UTC

mcbits wrote: post #13

snarf wrote: post #4

Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.

The policing of private messages is not new or sudden. Facebook has censored "offensive" (yet legal) private messages for years. One can assume they also already detect and report criminal activity to some degree. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to shine the spotlight on this practice.

For a while there it was headline news every time a breastfeeding mother got censored.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#15

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:03 AM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #9

What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail, planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that. e.g.: https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zucker...

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#16

Post by nl » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:04 AM UTC

s_kilk wrote: post #8

snarf wrote: post #4

Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.

> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.

This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me?

Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic.

The version of this play which I've heard was:

- Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories.

- Cover it with ads (from Google and others)

- Seed it in Facebook groups

- Rely on organic reach to generate traffic.

I maybe wrong about the ability to to arbitrage on this traffic. If anyone has numbers I'd love to see them.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#17

Post by mcbits » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:10 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #14

mcbits wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policing of private messages is not new or sudden. Facebook has censored "offensive" (yet legal) private messages for years. One can assume they also already detect and report criminal activity to some degree. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to shine the spotlight on this practice.

For a while there it was headline news every time a breastfeeding mother got censored.

AFAIK those are images posted publicly or semi-publicly and getting flagged by prudes, or at least that's how it gets portrayed. But my friend sent a series of Middle East carnage images to me in "private" messages, and they were removed a few days later with a message about being inappropriate for the site. Neither of us flagged them.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#18

Post by mcbits » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:16 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #16

s_kilk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.

This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me? Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic. The version of this play which I've heard was: - Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories. - Cover it with ads (from Google and others) - Seed it in Facebook groups - Rely on organic r…

When our granparents did this, they called it satire and had to chop down a lot of trees to like and share.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#19

Post by snarf » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:29 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #16

s_kilk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.

This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me? Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic. The version of this play which I've heard was: - Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories. - Cover it with ads (from Google and others) - Seed it in Facebook groups - Rely on organic r…

I believe the parent means Facebook makes money off of this indirectly. The more salacious fake news on Facebook, the higher the user engagement rate with the news feed, and the more time spent on Facebook reading and sharing this stuff. This translates to more ad revenue for Facebook.

Re: Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

#20

Post by nl » Fri, Feb 17, 2017, 10:41 AM UTC

snarf wrote: post #19

nl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me? Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic. The version of this play which I've heard was: - Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories. - Cover it with ads (from Google and others) - Seed it in Facebook groups - Rely on organic r…

I believe the parent means Facebook makes money off of this indirectly. The more salacious fake news on Facebook, the higher the user engagement rate with the news feed, and the more time spent on Facebook reading and sharing this stuff. This translates to more ad revenue for Facebook.

Yeah, maybe, if we are stretching.

But I wouldn't describe that as "raking in money" - more like a marginal increase which might have been matched by other changes in the news feed algorithm.