Facebook's PR feels broken

Post by starfallg » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 10:59 AM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #183

starfallg wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the reason why it feels like a classic PR tactic. Instead of discussing what went wrong and how FB's policies and operations are deficient, the conversation is being shifted towards how much the media is biased towards it. FB is not the victim here. Hence to have a productive discussion, being on the same page is indeed important - as in accepting first and foremost what FB's responsibilities are.

The conversation did not shift, both started from the opposite end and did not move, there were no conversation to begin with. And this is why we have the schism in our society. No one is willing to find the middle ground and listen any more. Everyone simultaneously believes that listening is others responsibility.

Post by incongruity » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 11:09 AM UTC

alchemism wrote: post #196

ori_b wrote: post #169

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 As though simply working at a university is sufficient reason to trust someone.

Social engineering at its finest.

Post by prox » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 11:51 AM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #147

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…

Academic research isn't some magic word that you just need to invoke, particularly when it involves personal data. You need specific informed consent and the sign-off from an ethics committee on your study plan. To not ask that of someone pretending to use your data for academic research is willful ignorance. Of course, we are talking about Facebook, who have literally been in the news before for themselves running r…

Post by xorcist » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:05 PM UTC

alchemism wrote: post #196

ori_b wrote: post #169

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 As though simply working at a university is sufficient reason to trust someone.

Social engineering at its finest.

Post by AQuantized » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:14 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #212

Barrin92 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

> 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. Ugh, this quote. If someone is working at a SWE at Facebook, their career options are probably pretty good. They can get a salary most anywhere. Too often people u…