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

My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 269 posts

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#221

Post by PascLeRasc »

yodsanklai wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

Please keep in mind that some of us just want bad things to happen to Facebook and don’t have a pro or anti-surveillance agenda behind that.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#222

Post by mensetmanusman »

csmoak wrote: post #218
lowkey_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

How do you look at spamming private messages to many recipients, resulting in a similar effect to posting publicly? I know of bullying on FB where the harasser sends the same message to dozens of friends of the harassed. FB makes this easy to do since a list of someone's contacts are often easy to find online and there is no recourse to find or report these messages (as with a public post). To me this presents a part…

There is no solution. Either you give people e2e and let them choose to do horrible things with the privilege or not.

Maybe a middle ground is that every e2e message is hashed and sent once, and if duplicate hashes are detected at scale (of the hashed message) you slow the propagation to 1 user per day.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#223

Post by tboyd47 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

I don't think either side has a solution. But, that doesn't mean they can't detect an obvious subterfuge from outside the community.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#224

Post by CamperBob2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is going to Congress and lobbying against end-to-end encryption of private communications, how are they an ally?

> If someone is going to Congress and lobbying against end-to-end encryption of private communications, how are they an ally? Because they're also lobbying for other things you care about. And those things are more likely to be passed into law than the E2E encryption pieces. Taking a puritanical view on an issue is a high-risk high-reward gambit. Nine out of ten times, it ejects you from the room. One out of ten time…

There's a gambler's fallacy at work here, though. Our Fourth Amendment right to encrypted private communications is so important that if we lose it (or give it up), any future wins in areas like corporate transparency, monopoly regulation, and net neutrality won't ultimately matter. We won't have the freedom needed to benefit from them.

To the extent Haugen disagrees, she's not on "our side."

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#225

Post by hammock »

lowkey_ wrote: post #7
yodsanklai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

If someone has their Twitter set on private (only followers can see content), but they accept most/all follow requests, would you consider their content in category 1 (private) or category 2 (public)?

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#226

Post by alex_young »

tayistay wrote: post #183
alex_young wrote: post #171

There’s a genuine moral dilemma here isn’t there? Imagine for a moment that we are debating what a company should do with a chalkboard in a public square. People keep writing things on it organizing racially motivated killings, etc. The company has implemented a technology which allows people to write things on it without anyone being able to see who posted what or when. If the company does nothing it will surely lea…

Bad analogy. Facebook has an algorithm which promotes posts that drive engagement, which is often extremist stuff. Just regulating that (as Haugen suggests) would improve things.

Context is the discussion about e2e encryption. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#227

Post by foobarbecue »

yodsanklai wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

You are conflating schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder. This is a common, but harmful, mistake.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#228

Post by dilippkumar »

yawnr wrote: post #43
lowkey_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts

My question is what constitutes a public post? I feel like that definition is evolving. Is a WhatsApp group with 1k members spreading disinformation still a private message?

> Is a WhatsApp group with 1k members spreading disinformation still a private message?

Yes it is.

A “public post” is when the message was directed towards anyone who cares to listen.

A “private post” is when the message was directed to a specific group of recipients. The length of the list of recipients doesn’t grant a non-recipient access rights to the message.

This is easy stuff.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#229

Post by tqi »

The nuanced tone / takeaway from the actual interview transcript feel very different from the final article: https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-papers-badge-posts-form...

Reading both, and seeing how disengaged the interviewer actually was with the interviewee, it really feels like Levy came into the interaction with a pre-constructed narrative in mind.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#230

Post by gnabgib »

foobarbecue wrote: post #227
yodsanklai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.

You are conflating schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder. This is a common, but harmful, mistake.

Perhaps you could provide some insight into why? I don't see how multiple personality disorder is a very useful characterization when you're describing a community made up of multiple personalities.
Post reply on HN