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

Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#21

Post by austincheney »

natestemen wrote: post #14
austincheney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?

To be completely honest, I don't think many people outside the tech bubble have realized the extent to which facebook used and collected users data. I just don't feel like it's fair to say everybody has known for years . Maybe in your circle, but certainly not in every ones.

> Maybe in your circle

What if the audience in question is limited to people reading Hacker News? Do they have an excuse for the sudden change of heart?

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#22

Post by AJRF »

"Hey we would like to give you weather reports and the ability to see when people in your area are selling things

P.s we will sell this on to third parties so they can target you to influence elections."

The problem here is Facebook doesn't ever word things like this, they up sell Facebook platform features, even if they are segways into increased advertising revenue.

I think regulation should have a stance on this. It needs to be easy for users to see exactly how their data is being used, and in a timely fashion. If the company can't protect our data, they don't deserve to have it.

What do you say Mark? You agreed to this*

* - https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-faceb...

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#23

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.)

Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year.

It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, right?

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#24

Post by dictum »

tatersolid wrote: post #12
austincheney wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook doesn't have to anything you didn't deliberately agree to surrender. That isn't very sketchy.

No user, even if they read the TOS, believed they were opting into perpetual call and SMS logging. It’s dark UX and the terrible Amdroid permissions system that tricked them into it.

Part of the problem is how the TOS is deliberately obscure long form text while the UI (which does not make the data sharing explicit) is nice, polished and A/B tested for maximum engagement [0].

Were the same information design effort applied to explaining the data collection and sharing, all users would at least know what is happening.

Most users should know/intuit how this pervasive data collection/sharing can have unwanted side effects, even without such nicely designed explanations, but one of the most effective rules of UX is don't make me think.

[0]: "Frictionless" in practice means "don't wait, start using this now and only think about it later".

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#25

Post by sidlls »

austincheney wrote: post #11
pieter_mj wrote: post #5

Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)

So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?

Facebook collects and uses data about people who don't have accounts with them: by definition there is no consent. They also collect and use the same kinds of data for their registered users, even if these users never explicitly consented to it.

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#26

Post by mistermann »

mulletbum wrote: post #15
austincheney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?

Can someone explain why this is getting downvoted? This is Hacker News not Reddit, please express your angle with text, not just a downvote.

> This is Hacker News not Reddit

The distinction is diminishing over time.

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#27

Post by dictum »

austincheney wrote: post #16
tatersolid wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No user, even if they read the TOS, believed they were opting into perpetual call and SMS logging. It’s dark UX and the terrible Amdroid permissions system that tricked them into it.

Its not dark UX merely because you don't like it. Dark UX suggests a control designed to trick you into making a decision you would deliberate otherwise not make. I looked at their opt-in control and it is very clear that you have to opt-in. In other words, if you didn't want Facebook to have all your call and SMS data then why would you deliberately agree to give it to Facebook with their very obvious consent form?

> their very obvious consent form

I haven't used FB in a long time and I never used their mobile app, so here's a genuine request: do you have a screenshot or some example of how they gather consent for this?

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#28

Post by loceng »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #23

Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.) Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year. It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, rig…

I've always had the thought that the reason is likely that if you have the money to pay for $40/year then you're likely potentially worth more to advertisers, and therefore they wouldn't want to give an option/leak to exclude the most valuable eyeballs from advertisers.

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#29

Post by trgn »

austincheney wrote: post #21
natestemen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be completely honest, I don't think many people outside the tech bubble have realized the extent to which facebook used and collected users data. I just don't feel like it's fair to say everybody has known for years . Maybe in your circle, but certainly not in every ones.

> Maybe in your circle What if the audience in question is limited to people reading Hacker News? Do they have an excuse for the sudden change of heart?

Absolutely, people change their opinions all the time, they don't need an excuse, rather, a welcoming pat on the back. It's a good thing!

Re: Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

#30

Post by xienze »

knz wrote: post #19
austincheney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many excuses. The story "Of course I agreed, but its all their fault because I didn't know what I agreed to" gets old. Everybody has known for years that Facebook uses this data against you to make money. If it didn't upset you before why would it suddenly upset you now?

Isn't the surprise of many that this was used for political purposes in a way that significantly differs from the expected pattern (micro targeting vs generic political advertising)? I suspect most people on HN are aware of how naive much of the public are about the implications of technology.

> Isn't the surprise of many that this was used for political purposes in a way that significantly differs from the expected pattern (micro targeting vs generic political advertising)?

Also not a surprise, it was well-known that the 2012 Obama campaign used targeted advertising and the media at the time raved about this brilliant use of an emerging technology. No one at the time saw fit to question them or Facebook. Let's all just be intellectually honest here: people only care because Trump made effective use of social media.

Post reply on HN