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

Facebook's PR feels broken

themargins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#201

Post by manfredo »

starfallg wrote: post #171
manfredo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I gather, Facebook did have a compliance program in place to ensure that data was only shared with those that met its usage policies. Aleksandr Kogan was working at the University of Cambridge at the time, so the claim that he was using this data for academic purposes would seem credible to Facebook. Here are a couple sources that state that Kogan told Facebook that the data was to be used for academic purp…

>But it seems to me that the primary culprit here is Kogan, who lied to Facebook about the use of the collected data, rather than Facebook whose fault was being too trusting of academics. And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of c…

> And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of contract terms to not only remove the data in question but all of the products that resulted in the processing of the data? Again very little.

They revoked Cambridge Analytica's access to Facebook's data, and told Cambridge Analytica to delete the data they had gathered. And Cambridge Analytica again lied to Facebook and told them they had deleted the data. That's the extent of what Facebook could have done. If Kogan broke laws - and he probably did - that's the government's prerogative to charge and prosecute him.

Likening this scenario to banks giving out mortgages that they know debtors cannot pay off is not an effective comparison. This is more like someone securing a loan by falsifying their income. In both cases the customers were harmed. Facebook users' data was used for purposes to which they did not consent, and the bank customers' money was loaned out at excessive risk. But the culprit that is responsible for this is the one that deceived the company, not the company itself. One could reasonably argue that Facebook should have been wise enough to avoid being duped, but that's still much more generous to Facebook than the bulk of the coverage I read that attempted to assign primary blame on Facebook rather than Cambridge Analytica.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#202

Post by manfredo »

rumanator wrote: post #177
freepor wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed.

> Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed. Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how th…

> Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside.

This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, and subsequently lied again when Facebook learned of this deception and demanded that the data Cambridge Analytica collected be deleted.

You're right this isn't like a bank robbery. This is more like someone securing a loan and then running off with the money. The bank's customers were harmed and one could criticize the bank's scrutiny of its debtors. But there nefarious party is the one deceiving the bank.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#203

Post by austhrow743 »

freepor wrote: post #167
starfallg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having a hard time believing that this is a legitimate opinion and not conjured up by Facebook PR. Facebook is the one that collected the data. It is their responsibility to ensure that who they give your data to is who they are, and that they are doing what they should be doing to your data. The should have a comprehensive compliance program for third parties with access to user data and have the necessary enfor…

Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed.

Banks don't usually hand over deposit boxes to people just because they work at universities.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#204

Post by rumanator »

manfredo wrote: post #202
rumanator wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed. Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how th…

> Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside. This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data tha…

> This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected,

This line of complaint is absurdly disingenuous. The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data.

This is precisely the type of PR problem that Facebook creates for themselves: this insistent, desperate, cynical, and pathetically inneficient way they try to pin the blame on others for the problem Facebook single-handedly created. Force-feeding this nonsense through astroturfing campaigns doesn't change the problem and the responsibility that Facebook has.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#205

Post by jorams »

LanceH wrote: post #57
drewrv wrote: post #15

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

I think logically the government shouldn't be threatening anyone with a breakup based upon speech. I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion. I would rather risk total garbage in the public forum than establish a ministry of truth.

> I'm not sure how you get there as a logical conclusion.

If fact-checking political advertising gives them too much power, and not doing so is something they themselves decided on, then they already have that power. If no one company should have that amount of power, they should have that power taken away from them.

The bigger next step is that any alternative to breaking them up would be against their freedom of speech. I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative that wouldn't, but there might be one.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#206

Post by manfredo »

rumanator wrote: post #204
manfredo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside. This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data tha…

> This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, This line of complaint is absurdly disingenuous. The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data. Thi…

> The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data.

"Third parties did not click on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data" is not even remotely close to what happened. The fact that this perspective is so common is big party of why I doubt many people received coverage of the events that was even close to objective.

Alexandr Kogan was a senior research associate at the University of Cambirdge, and developed a personality quiz app that collected data that he claimed he would use for academic purposes. He subsequently used this data for commercial and political purposes, and when Facebook discovered this they revoked Kogan's app's access and demanded that he delete the data that he had collected. Kogan told Facebook that he had deleted the data when he had not done so. This wasn't third parties not checking the right box, this was a deliberate and involved plan evade Facebook's data use policies.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#207

Post by starfallg »

manfredo wrote: post #201
starfallg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it seems to me that the primary culprit here is Kogan, who lied to Facebook about the use of the collected data, rather than Facebook whose fault was being too trusting of academics. And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of c…

> And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of contract terms to not only remove the data in question but all of the products that resulted in the processing of the data? Again very little. They revoked Cambridge Analytica's access to…

>That's the extent of what Facebook could have done. If Kogan broke laws - and he probably did - that's the government's prerogative to charge and prosecute him.

No. Facebook is aware of the damage that could have been done. Relying on a party that already breached their terms of use to the data (of FB users) to keep their word is negligence. They should have 1. structured their relationship better so that their is contractual and financial recourse from the third-party and 2. carried out a full investigation into the breach at the time they were notified, not when it was reported by the media.

Also Facebook did in fact breach UK data protection laws and was fined by the ICO for its role in the CA scandal. It was found that their data privacy policies and processes was insufficient. Unfortunately this was before the GDPR and hence the maximum fine that could be imposed was insignificant at £500K.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#208

Post by edanm »

Barrin92 wrote: post #181
manfredo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who worked at Facebook for the better part of a decade responded that they felt the media coverage was unfair to Facebook. You were suprised by this response because from an outsider's perspective you felt that Facebook employees should be apologetic? What makes you more qualified to judge whether the public perception was accurate as compared to someone who actually worked there - an "FB vet" in your own wor…

>What makes you more qualified to judge whether the public perception was accurate as compared to someone who actually worked there - an "FB vet" in your own words? For starters, most of us here don't benefit financially from putting a positive spin on disasters at Facebook. As the Upton Sinclair saying goes, it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.…

> I've not talked to Facebook employees personally but I've witnessed the same degree of delusion at other large tech companies. Some are straight-up like a cult with employees willing to defend just about anything their company does regardless of how hazardous it was. Which is even more baffling if one takes into consideration that these are usually salaried employees working there only for a few years with no personal stake whatsoever.

Well I think I can solve this puzzle. It's possible some people disagree with you about how "hazardous" their company is.

They're not "cult-like" or "delusional". They're not willing to "defend just about anything" despite the fact that they are only there a few years.

They just don't agree with you on the amount of hazard their companies are doing.

Note: This is regardless of whether you are in fact right or wrong. But it kind of bugs me that someone not having the same views is branded in such a way, as if somehow clearly you know the truth, so anyone who isn't automatically on your side must be delusional/evil in some way.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#209

Post by Iolaum »

manfredo wrote: post #201
starfallg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it seems to me that the primary culprit here is Kogan, who lied to Facebook about the use of the collected data, rather than Facebook whose fault was being too trusting of academics. And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of c…

> And what did FB do as due diligence? Very little. When FB discovered the breach, what did they do as a response and to mitigate the effects to the affected users? How did they recover damages and/or enforce specific performance of contract terms to not only remove the data in question but all of the products that resulted in the processing of the data? Again very little. They revoked Cambridge Analytica's access to…

Facebook could have sued them into oblivion to demonstrate commitment in enforcing their data protection policies instead of relying on their word to delete the data when they broke their word by misusing the data in the first place.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#210

Post by rumanator »

manfredo wrote: post #206
rumanator wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, This line of complaint is absurdly disingenuous. The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data. Thi…

> The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data. "Third parties did not click on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data" is not even remotely close to what happened. The fact that this perspective is…

> "Third parties did not click on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data" is not even remotely close to what happened.

It was precisely what happened. Facebook's excuse is that Cambridge Analytics did not complied with Facebook's terms of service.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/17/17134072/facebook-cambridge-an...

And the fact is, Cambridge Analytics were just the stupid ones, the ones that opened their mouths and openly bragged about what they were doing.

So, enough with the bullshit.

Post reply on HN