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

221–230 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#221

Post by enraged_camel »

ryandrake wrote: post #198
ganstyles wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interviewed there this summer because the position/compensation offered was just too good to not consider seriously. Like, top 10% at FB kind of money, which is a lot. During the interview process, I asked many FB employees about their thoughts on FB in the news, the headlines, scandals, etc. All super smart and dedicated people, but anecdotally there was no hint of them thinking they had done anything wrong. They…

I know a few people who work there too. I can have an intelligent conversation/debate about almost anything with them, from tech stacks to software development methodology, but bring up privacy and Cambridge Analytica, and all of a sudden the wagons circle and it’s all “we’re so misunderstood,” and “the biased media is out to get us,” and “we do so much for user privacy and always just get shit on!” Its as if they al…

I don’t doubt that Facebook does a lot for user privacy, but it is probably the case that nobody there (except maybe Boz) really, thoroughly understands the enormous amount of power and influence the company wields, and they also haven’t realized that the thing they have worked hard to create is now an out-of-control monster.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#222

Post by enraged_camel »

biznickman wrote: post #67

LOL "Before 2019, it felt like the Facebook communications machine was a well-oiled, unstoppable juggernaut." Umm how about Cambridge Analytica? Facebook's PR has been troubled for a very long time. To suggest that they has a stellar image before 2019 is a joke. I can list many other slip ups where Facebook could have come out and said something (or even better, did something) and then weeks later they come up with a…

Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica PR was very successful, evidenced by the fact that you have people in this very thread arguing that the blame for the debacle overwhelmingly lies with Cambridge Analytica because they broke the TOS and then lied about having deleted the data, and that the media completely misrepresented the whole thing because it’s biased.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#223

Post by xorcist »

The Facebook / Cambridge Analytica story is completely baffling to me.

Here we have a company whose business idea it is to lock up as much of the web as possible on their platform. Contacts, messageboards, photos, events, calendars, chat, dating, anything goes really. They then earn money from selling data.

Then the Cambridge Analytica scandal breaks where a company has used data from Facebook unethically. How was this not expected? Had it been better if this company used their data a little less unethically? Had it been better if Facebook sold PR-as-a-service directly instead of enabling an ecosystem of smaller companies offering this?

(Because the latter is what is going to happen over the long run should Facebook continue to be successful. When there is no room to grow anymore the ecosystem is going to be cannibalized.)

This is all inherent to business models dependent on data ownership. Upon observing the majority of the population migrating to closed platforms, the discourse among the people who care about open data must instead be framed in terms of how to shape the conditions of said business models. Codifying data ownership is one way to move forward, GDPR being the most known example. It may be blunt but it at least poses the question of who owns which data.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#224

Post by enraged_camel »

Aperocky wrote: post #154
lobe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it like that at all. As stated in the article, the offending bit was the last two lines. "If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do" is the smug, condescending jab that was completely unnecessary. It is inflammatory for no benefit. The start of the response was perfectly fine and I did not feel the author took offence to it.

And the author should not take offense to that either. I have no idea why people would take offense to 'If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do'. Maybe the same reason they would be offended by talking to a person with different opinions.

>> I have no idea why people would take offense to 'If you haven't tried it, I suggest you do'.

On its own it’s an innocent enough statement, and even correct. But in this context, i.e. when people are accusing you of something, and it is part of your response, it comes off as very condescending and smug.

There is a reason PR departments exist: they tend to be hypersensitive to the different ways in which a piece of communication can be perceived, and to dull its sharp edges.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#225

Post by cycomanic »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #103

> One of their most longtime, loyal leaders is directly saying they have the power to sway national elections. It is their decision, and their decision alone, to resist the temptation to "change the outcome"! Oh, he better be careful. That’s pretty close to pushing a right-wing talking point /s Facebook, etc.. Is no different in its power to influence elections than traditional news papers ever have been. The only di…

> > One of their most longtime, loyal leaders is directly saying they have the power to sway national elections. It is their decision, and their decision alone, to resist the temptation to "change the outcome"!

> Oh, he better be careful. That’s pretty close to pushing a right-wing talking point /s

> Facebook, etc.. Is no different in its power to influence elections than traditional news papers ever have been. The only difference is a matter of scale and homogeny.

That's an empty argument. Everything is about the scale, by that argument each individual has the same power as e.g Facebook to influence elections, it's just a matter of scale. However, scale is the difference between effectively no power and a lot of power.

> Today, instead of thousands of media publications, each pushing their own biases and perspectives (which they always have), you have a very small group of tech giants that get to decide what you see (and even more frighteningly), what you’re allowed to say about it. Sure there’s more media outlets today than there’s ever been, but a small handful of companies get to control their reach, and (again more frighteningly) their ability to collect revenue.

> Then you have the issue that traditional media has always represented a diverse set of opinions and world views. You have conservative and liberal outlets, outlets the promote free market ideas and those that promote socialist ideas, outlets that promote regulation and those that promote small government. The small number of organisations that control access to ideas and speech today all represent an incredibly homogeneous political world view.

> The problem isn’t that those organisations have done a poor job of controlling the flow of information, it’s that they have the ability to do it in the first place. Those companies should not have the ability to act as gatekeepers who determine the credibility of information, or the moral implications of speech. In a free society, that responsibility falls of on the shoulders of every individual, and to have an authority doing that on their behalf denies them the opportunity to do so themselves.

> This is also a matter of values, not constitutional law (as people often like to derail such conversations by claiming regulation would violate 1A). The law that empowers these companies to to moderate content is the Communications Decency Act, not the 1st amendment.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#227

Post by manfredo »

rumanator wrote: post #210
manfredo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mout…

Only if you're being metaphorical in what you meant by "checking the wrong boxes". Kogan had a research position in psychology at a world renowned university. He leveraged this position to claim that his work was for academic research on psychology, and then turned around and used this data for commercial purposes. This isn't some random app developer checking a box when they publish their app. And when Facebook learned that these restrictions were being breached, they revoked Cambridge analytica's access and demanded that the data be destroyed.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#228

Post by manfredo »

starfallg wrote: post #207
manfredo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

#1 is speaking from a position of hindsight. As I said, we can claim that Facebook should have been more skeptical of the intentions of university researchers, but this far from being negligent in their enforcement of their data use policies.

#2 Demonstrates persistent misunderstandings of what events transpired. Facebook was not breached in any way. Again, Camridge Analytica did not hack into Facebook's systems. This was Cambridge Analytica's subsequent misuse of the data that they had collected with Facbook's consent, but under stricter terms than the purposed for which Cambridge Analytica subsequently used the data. Facebook ordered Cambridge Analytica to delete the data.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#229

Post by manfredo »

ori_b wrote: post #169
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…

> 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.

This person held a research position in the psychology department of a world renowned university, and claimed to be writing an app to gauge Facebook users' personalities. T This is more than just "simply working at a university", Kogan held a research position and proposed an app with a purported academic purpose that was in his field of study.

Re: Facebook's PR feels broken

#230

Post by rockinghigh »

cycomanic wrote: post #218
smacktoward wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the U.S. has this pesky thing called the First Amendment that makes restricting political speech difficult.

Why do Americans always think that the freedom of speech is a exclusively American thing? All liberal democracies have similar concepts, they do put different limits on it (just like the US puts limits)

It’s the American exceptionalism, the belief that the US is unique in how much freedom its citizens have. The land of the free. In reality, citizens in other democracies have as much or more freedom.
Post reply on HN