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

Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#111

Post by apstls »

artificial wrote: post #50
apstls wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accurate reporting of Russia's cyber activities is not propaganda.

According to Mr Bernays who wrote the book Propaganda. The best kind of propaganda is true. It’s not only propaganda when it’s nefarious or pernicious. Effective military cyber capability is an excellent example.

I have not read this book; based on the author’s definitions, what additional conditions are required for accurate reporting by media outlets of foreign cyber attacks against our nation to be considered propaganda?

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#112

Post by barrbid8 »

throw10920 wrote: post #86
Georgelemental wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reporting negatively on the Iraq war or blackwater or Facebook isn’t “anti American propaganda”. Yes it is. Propaganda doesn't have to be untrue

>> Reporting negatively on the Iraq war or blackwater or Facebook isn’t “anti American propaganda”. > Yes it is. Propaganda doesn't have to be untrue This makes all negative reporting propaganda by definition, which is clearly untrue.

The implication in the parent comment is that “anti Russian” propaganda is warping the truth and the people have been brainwashed, the word propaganda isn’t being used to imply the issue is the opposite of “true”.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#114

Post by Phileosopher »

BrainVirus wrote: post #18

The sad thing about news like this is that most people only pay attention at all because they've been bombarded with anti-Russian propaganda, not because this showcases Google's awful anti-privacy practices. Despite years of warnings, examples and analysis of where this can lead, the only thing that matters in the end is some emotional trigger word that makes the public think they are dealing with an "outgroup". The…

>Privacy is important precisely because after your data has been collected and stored, there is no telling where it will end up and what it will be used for.

This can't be overstated. It's like a hole in the wall that can't be patched.

I've lived most of my life expecting an Orwellian life. While it was grounded in paranoia, complete transparency is pretty much the only lowest-stress way to live when anyone can theoretically dox you over just about anything if the fashions pendulum swings hard enough in one direction.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#115

Post by pdimitar »

burkaman wrote: post #90
pdimitar wrote: post #20

What the hell does the recent Russian hostility has to do with this? Sanctions? You mean that the privacy laws that have been ignored and laughed at are not a bad enough violation? Apparently it's not, huh. Google and Facebook have been extremely anti-privacy since practically their inception but suddenly NOW it's a problem because an attached Russian company has been doing what Google has been enabling any company t…

> Google and Facebook have been extremely anti-privacy since practically their inception but suddenly NOW it's a problem because an attached Russian company has been doing what Google has been enabling any company to do, for decades? Propublica has been reporting on Google and Facebook (and others) privacy issues for most of their 15 year history. See their Dragnets series: https://www.propublica.org/series/dragnets…

> Why would this topic be suddenly out of bounds now that Russia is involved?

I did not say that. I am saying: everybody makes use of that info and that's the real issue that must be fought tooth and nail. Not "hey, just now we realized that the Russians have access to this info, sh1t is real, let's stop them!". Meh. What about China? What about a lot of other countries that definitely don't mean you well?

My point was that Russia having access to this info is (1) nothing new, and (2) the smaller issue because everybody with some money and having the ear of Google/Facebook has access to the info.

Suddenly going back to the Cold War mentality of "Russia bad" is not helping the world at all. There are other villains out there and we must be vigilant. I cynically know that people rally when they have a singular big villain but that's a laughable view of the world that never worked in practice.

Re: Google allowed a sanctioned Russian ad company to harvest user data for months

#116

Post by thereddaikon »

freeflight wrote: post #52
thereddaikon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its done by the government or a government owned body it is by definition. That being said, Propublica is neither a government nor is it a government owned news agency. So its not propaganda.

Tho that's quite the overly specific, and dated, definition of "propaganda". Public relations is a way more apt term for what's going on in modern times [0], and in the "cyber" manifestation of that field, private parties are recognized as the main contributors, and actors, for a number of nation states [1] [0] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/17/influencers-ukraini... [1] https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cef7e…

If the government does it its propaganda. I don't see how that's dated. Unless you count misuse of the term as valid. People misuse propaganda to mean media describing a narrative they don't like all the time. But those people are wrong and shouldn't be encouraged.

Third parties working on behalf of a government to spread their message do count as Propaganda.

The difficult part is telling apart propaganda from organic content. People have this idea of propaganda being a bunch of communists making posters with slogans or something. But that is what's really dated. How do you know a group isn't being funded by a government or affiliated with them? Sometimes its easy to tell. Like with Russia Today. They have the veneer of a news outlet but they are state owned. But when a lot of people get their news from social media its impossible to know who is really on the other side.

Post reply on HN