Live data from Hacker News

Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot

this.weekinsecurity.com

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow this company still earns over a billion dollars a week in net profits, which I find puzzling.

Why? They clearly are not spending money on employee salaries, taxes, or benefits.

According to SEC filings, the median yearly total compensation at Meta is $380,000. Median for the US in general is about $70,000.

Re: Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're awful with this. Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account. You need to fun everything through your personal account.

> Any time I try to create an account to use for business purposes I'm asked for id within minutes and then they still ban the account. That's because they require accounts to represent an individual. They're pretty clear that it can't be for a business or a non-human entity. You can set up a professional account from your personal account, but the account has to be for a person.

You have to no choice but to create a 'personal' account. What I mean is I'm setting up a new 'personal' account (with my real name, age, etc) which uses my business email (firstname@business.com). Requiring everything business related to be tied to a real personal account is insane.

Re: Meta confirms 1000s of Instagram accounts were hacked by abusing its AI chatbot

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I broadly agree with you but TBF to the earlier comment consider what would happen if a FOSS author did something wrong and was found to be liable. How about curl for example? That sees use in car infotainment systems among other things and cars can be pretty expensive and there sure are an awful lot of them. The point is that we should be able to accommodate someone pushing a hobby project to github under a permissi…

The EU CRA handles this by putting liability on someone who integrates FOSS into a product instead of someone who wrote it. Because it doesn't make sense to put liability for unforeseen downstream uses on someone who gave away something they made in their spare time. Now, if it was a virus, you're still liable for distributing a virus.

Yes, when you're selling a product you can price the risk of lawsuits into whatever you're charging customers. You can't do that with free software without making it no longer free.

"No problem: just don't get sued" only works if legal battles are free and/or the law makes it so blatently obvious that you're not liable that nobody would bother to try.

Post reply on HN