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.…
I was working at Facebook when the CA story broke, but not when the events happened. I was in a department far removed from any of the involved parties. I haven't worked for them for several years now, and I currently own no FB stock outside of broad-based index funds¹. As I recall, the sense of unfairness that was going around was rooted mostly in it feeling like old news. CA was the ghost of a bad policy that had a…
Facebook's PR feels broken
261–262 of 262 posts
Re: Facebook's PR feels broken
#262> I’m sure, internally, it’s looked at as the “mainstream media trying to get clicks... I interviewed with FB shortly after the Cambridge Analytica stuff came out (but long enough after that it was clear to everyone that FB had screwed up big time). When it was my turn to ask questions in one particular interview, I gave a standard fallback when I have nothing else: "[despite all the blahblah positives], having worke…
How was Facebook an 'horrible actor' in the CA scandal exactly? Facebook had relatively permission APIs. The entire world knew it. Journalists, developers, Big Cos. Nobody was screaming that there was a problem. Though there were a few issues around privacy, there wasn't really any public dialog specifically around the nature of those APIs. CA found a sneaky way to take advantage of somewhat open APIs. As the world s…
They're the ones that allowed it to happen, how long the world took to complain about it is not very relevant.