191–200 of 405 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage being cheap is irrelevant..when a user requests the data to be deleted. You delete it. Outside of government compliance there is no reason to not comply with that request
That's not true. What if you want to support un-delete? That's a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Storage being cheap is irrelevant..when a user requests the data to be deleted. You delete it. Outside of government compliance there is no reason to not comply with that request
Yes there are, but there are no moral reasons to not comply with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to ask the obvious question. Who doesn't do the something like this? Not to alleviate facebook of blame, but who's to say data on almost every other social media service isn't also just flagged for deletion?
Snapchat claims to. And after the trouble they once got into for not deleting media after it was viewed, I believe them. https://www.snap.com/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy/
One fascinating outcome of all this fallout is that there's now a readymade excuse to stop using Facebook. My personal observations are that a good number of people have felt 'fatigued' by Facebook for a very long time, but were also unsure of how best to extricate themselves without incurring a social penalty. But now there's an impetus that most people can understand. I'm not sure about how many people will move aw…
Meanwhile, FB share price is on the up again ha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat claims to. And after the trouble they once got into for not deleting media after it was viewed, I believe them. https://www.snap.com/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy/
Why would you believe them after they have lied to you once already?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat claims to. And after the trouble they once got into for not deleting media after it was viewed, I believe them. https://www.snap.com/en-GB/privacy/privacy-policy/
Why would you believe them after they have lied to you once already?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am sure that the deletion of media files in services like Facebook has never meant to be absolute. Many of my colleagues believe the same thing that I believe: Facebook and other services do not actually delete data, they just mark it as "deleted" and purge it only if they need the space. No reason to believe. You can read about the storage architecture used to store photos from a post in 2009 here: https://code.…
So, like a filesystem more or less I might just "help" them by uploading more data I guess
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook and other services do not actually delete data, they just mark it as "deleted" and purge it only if they need the space. You may be correct, but that doesn't explain why Facebook decided to include so-called deleted files in a download of user data. Clearly these deleted files are still a part of Facebook user profiles and accessible to company data mining software. Facebook has exposed their own duplicity…
Maybe the Facebook development processes and tracking of tech debt is just shit. First person: "I'll just flag the content and then it won't show on their timeline!" Second person: "I'll just select all the records that belongs to this account when packaging a backup. All the deleted content should be gone!" But I wouldn't discount your hypothesis.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/silicon-v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly there is a big disconnect here. It seems somebody is suggesting there should be a correlation between a user removing content from their account and Facebook destroying some of Facebook property. Anything submitted to Facebook is the property of Facebook. Users have no business telling Facebook to destroy Facebook property.
> Anything submitted to Facebook is the property of Facebook. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Are we to accept that this is how it works simply because Facebook says this is how it works?