121–130 of 226 posts
They don't do creepy things on occasion by accident, they do them intentionally by default.
Same old story for the last 20 years. Zuck is creepy AF, everything he touches is creepy AF.
https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you give your mail client credentials to read your email , would you not expect your client to be able to read your mail? On Android, when you give a third party client permission to receive SMS, you don’t expect it to have access to your SMS?
[flagged]
Yes, in fact, that's what the feature was. You could send a movie recommendation via Facebook within Netflix, and then continue the conversation with that friend, still in the Netflix app.
It's a dumb idea for all of the obvious reasons that its in Netfix' best interest to hoover up the data, but that's why it doesn't exist anymore and hasn't existed for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are saying that no one can distribute their own work on thier own website? Where do you draw the line? Can I not create my own video and put it on my website? Can I not work with friends and we all post our own video on our own website that we jointly own? How do we stop foreign studios from distribution over the internet? Do we block them too? Why stop at films? Should book authors also not be slowed to self…
This slippery slope/where do you draw the line argument is very weak. It's like saying me accidentally spilling a bit while doing a oil change in my garage is the same as BP spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude. Scale matters. And "where you draw the line" can be defined loosely to be left up to interpretation at the time.
And then foreign companies are still allowed to distribute thier own content? Are you going to block them from transmitting to the US?
If Netflix decides to incorporate in Canada, are you going to stop them from distributing thier own content to US citizens?
You really don’t see a problem with the government prohibiting companies from distributing thier own content over the internet?
Does that count for newspapers? Video content created by large newspapers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... this sounds like OAuth, with a nice consent scene that says I'm giving Netflix this access to my FB DNs. That's what you mean, right? Otherwise, what the fuck is the difference? . And really, as if this makes anything better, wow. Imagine having the feeling of obligation that you have to stick your neck out over this. Just take your over-sized salary and be happy knowing you work for one of the worst companies…
Totally agree with the sentiment here. The comment by the employee make it sound like it's the user's fault. Something akin to dark pattern and malicious compliance by giving the user an OAuth consent for their DM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are saying that no one can distribute their own work on thier own website? Where do you draw the line? Can I not create my own video and put it on my website? Can I not work with friends and we all post our own video on our own website that we jointly own? How do we stop foreign studios from distribution over the internet? Do we block them too? Why stop at films? Should book authors also not be slowed to self…
it's about scale, obviously. the sorts of ventures you make a limited liability corporation for. you want to protect yourself from the potential risks? Then participate in the market in a fair and non-abusive manner. Same thing for publishing companies. individual authors can do whatever they like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if a user consented to Netflix-based chat, Facebook overshared all chat data, instead of only the Netflix chat data, because they couldn't be bothered to build a properly isolated API? That's like asking permission to read and write your entire phone, just to provide the ability to write and read back a file.
> That's like asking permission to read and write your entire phone, just to provide the ability to write and read back a file. ...it occurs to me that this is in fact how most desktop apps work, and I do prefer it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't how permissions work in most OAuth APIs. When you request permissions on apps like this, you request an "action" on a "subject". The "action" can be read/write/delete, the subject can be "DMs". How does Facebook determine whether a specific DM is a Netflix DM? In the database it's just a message from one user to another, with a certain text content. By the way I'm not suggesting that it cant work this way,…
This is why OAuth is insufficient for privilege management, especially for multi-tenant systems, or what should be segregated data sets. You want to grant access to dataset abc123, but not dataset abc124 belonging to the same user. This leads to an explosion of scopes, or an explosion of API keys, unless you have a policy engine, or resource-based access control. A company as big as Meta should be able to (is able to…
The OAuth consent screen details for an app ("Netflix" and the Netflix logo, etc) could be used to present this to the user.
However this presupposes that this was ever a good idea. On desktop you have a Facebook tab you can chat from, and on mobile, you want to chat on the Facebook (or whatever) app so you have all of its normal features, instead of a gimped version stuck inside a third party app. The third party app only needs to be able to ask the user if its OK to send a message with specific content, and possibly be able to enumerate who it might send to, but even that we've weeded out into the OS' own Share dialog nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's like asking permission to read and write your entire phone, just to provide the ability to write and read back a file. ...it occurs to me that this is in fact how most desktop apps work, and I do prefer it that way.
On windows idk but Unix has permissions for that reason.
The article skips a lot of context to make it sound significantly worse than reality. Facebook didn't just randomly give Netflix access to everyone's messages. Specific user would need to purposefully log in to the Netflix app with their Facebook account in order to grant Netflix access to the chat functionality (intended to send movie recommendations to Facebook friends inside the Netflix app). https://about.fb.com/…
1. "Does Facebook use info from your private messages to target you with ads?
No. Facebook says it might look at your private messages to determine if they violate the company's policies, but it doesn't use that information for ad targeting. Facebook won't use the contents of your private messages to target you with ads on Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp or Instagram either, according to a spokesperson."
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17177842/facebook-advertising-...
If the messages are encrypted "end-to-end" or whatever the chosen marketing buzzwords, so that Facebook cannot read them, then how is FB able to "use" messages for anything. One accustomed to normal communications services might think FB is storing and delivering messages and that's all. But in truth, it's "using" them. (For purposes other than complying with any request from a court of comptent jurisdiction.)
Exactly what they might be doing is of course highly confidential. You are free to take guesses. FB may answer yes or no. Answers cannot be verified, so their value outside of marketing is dubious.
NB. Meta _is_ a third party. It feels as if some people believe they can redefine terms like "end-to-end", "third party", etc. As if they know many readers will happily go along for the ride.