Facebook's seized files published by MPs • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#291

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #231

I worked at Facebook for 5 years on Workplace and Internal Tools. I am typically very critical of the company nowadays, but even so find the discussion here difficult to digest. People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making…

So... we should be nice to Facebook, so as not to distract them during their advance on Prussia?

...and because treating them differently based on their actions may cause good people to apply their skills to endeavors other than growing Facebook’s wealth of private data?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#292

Post by amaccuish » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

Mahn wrote: post #283

hkt wrote: post #73

Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to look after people's interests. Time to get serious, act on this, and break up Facebook forever.

I think this sets an awful precedent and it's astonishing that an action like this would be applauded. But you do you.

And what precedent is that? The idea that companies aren't above the law? That's a precedent I wish was more enforced.

I'm proud of my parliament today (and it's not often I can say that), even if in other parts they're tearing themselves apart.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#293

Post by pmart123 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #259

pmart123 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, looking at this with a glance, I am surprised the coverage around Onavo hasn't been bigger. If I am following this correctly, it would be similar to Google creating a Firefox extension to enable "extra privacy," but secretly pumping the data back to Google? Or if Windows Defender sent all your web usage data and keystrokes to Microsoft? I'm not sure how this doesn't fit the definition of Spyware?

Google got all of this data first-party, as search logs are very informative about which websites/services are popular. I'm sure that things like that factored into the decision to buy YouTube, for example. Onavo was a company that tried to sell VPN access to reduce data costs, found out that didn't make money and pivoted to selling reports to publishers and advertisers. Then FB bought them, and treated them like an…

Hasn't AppAnnie accomplished being "the Neilsen of the mobile age" in some ways? I'm not sure how AppAnnie collects its data. My guess would be that it is buying data from Foursquare, etc. I don't have much of a problem with that. I suppose I'm more opposed to a large company offering an app that promises privacy yet delivers the exact opposite of privacy.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#294

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #219

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparable dataset of what, exactly? Of Facebook's internal user data? Think about how much data Amazon has about all the suppliers and products they've sold over the last twenty years. Should they be forced to hand it over to anyone who wants it just because of the fact that its size and exclusivity makes it very valuable? What about the governments databases on everything under the sun? Should all of that be public…

Nobody is suggesting everyone has a right to Facebook or any other company's data (just like nobody seriously suggested MS shouldn't be able to impose any restrictions on OEM Windows installations). They're suggesting that if a company sets itself up as a provider of data and other platform services to encourage everyone else in the market to become dependent upon it then selectively pulls the plug on the most succes…

I definitely see those arguments being made (in this thread, in fact), but that may not be the argument you're making.

I think the issue I have is with the idea that Facebook is successful, and therefore can no longer prevent their competitors from blatantly taking advantage of them. But I'm not sure where to draw the line.

If Visa and Mastercard decided for whatever reason that they wanted to kill some small banking chain and not allow payments for them or their customers to go through their network, that would be bad. But I don't think that means that they have to let an upstart competitor credit card startup have access to the huge multi-billion-dollar network they've built up, does it? Even if they might extend that network to other entities that don't compete with them?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#295

Post by shawnz » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

0db532a0 wrote: post #290

shawnz wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, and I don't think anybody is suggesting you should be banned or that it's a grievous sin to use such an analogy. The point is just that it's something which could conceivably be seen negatively in some circumstances and it's also only a small amount of work to adopt different language.

Please focus on material problems.

This kind of dismissal is basically the same as telling investors in the tech sector that they ought to be investing in curing cancer instead. Nobody is asking you to drop everything and make social justice the #1 priority in your life. It's just a small issue which is worth a small amount of consideration -- certainly not vehement denial, though.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#296

Post by spunker540 » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

danarmak wrote: post #254

spunker540 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they were mostly using their market dominance to kill apps that decided to live on the Facebook platform in the first place. If you build an app that relies solely on Facebook login and access to Facebook data as key parts of your business model then are you really a competitor?

Well, if you build an app that runs on Windows like Netscape did, are you really a competitor of Microsoft? Turns out, you might be, if Microsoft want to make their own app. Similarly, Facebook might want to introduce or change native functionality, or monetize their platform, in a way that competes with your app.

That's a good point of comparison but the difference I think is at the time Windows was a dominant OS, and most people's only option. For them to come out and compete with Netscape and prevent Netscape from operating on their OS would be a death sentence for Netscape because it is not reasonable for Netscape's response to be "Fine we'll make our own OS!".

There's a huge difference between "build your own OS" and "build your own website login".

It's not a very tall order to create a social website that doesn't use FB login. Social websites should not by default have a right to all of facebook's users. They should have to build that user base themselves.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#297

Post by mistursinistur » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #231

I worked at Facebook for 5 years on Workplace and Internal Tools. I am typically very critical of the company nowadays, but even so find the discussion here difficult to digest. People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making…

Like notacoward's post below, this one misses the point. The shaming is not about how good or bad or complex you are.

Some people have determined that Facebook is an organization that's producing some bad results. Socially shaming employees, removing the status they might have hoped to acquire and spiking attrition are tools being deployed to change Facebook's behavior and the behavior of Facebook's competitors.

You might claim that this pressure will never work, or that it will cause Facebook to shut down the "Are You Safe" feature, or gut the charity tools, or avoid developing these kinds of projects in the future. But we should avoid hand-wavy claims that Facebook and the people who work there are just too complicated to influence.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#298

Post by deogeo » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #231

I worked at Facebook for 5 years on Workplace and Internal Tools. I am typically very critical of the company nowadays, but even so find the discussion here difficult to digest. People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making…

> you close the dialog with that person that allows you to change opinions and outcomes.

So if we're nicer to facebook, maybe it'll decide to not spy on people quite so much, undo the engineered-for-addiction notifications and feed, and curb it's anti-competitive practices (but not give back any market advantage it has already gained through them, of course)? The executives will voluntarily decide to make the company earn less money, so they can be more ethical?

Is there any precedent for a large corporation acting in this way?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#299

Post by Mahn » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #95

tpush wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really interesting stuff in there. > Facebook email 24 January 2013 > Justin Osofsky – ‘Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video. As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We’ve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision. > MZ – ‘Yup, go…

What's really striking is how user-hostile this conversation is. Forget about whether the user wants to share their data or not - it's all about what Facebook wants to do. In this case, that's snuffing competition by denying access, in the case of Cambridge Analytica, it's sharing data for purposes of shady data "research".

There's nothing that Facebook did here than any other company, in tech or otherwise, wouldn't have done.

And for the record, Facebook did not "share data with Cambridge Analytica for shady research purposes". A rogue third party developer created one of those shitty quiz apps for Facebook, and then proceed to get users to signup for it; several million did, which allowed said developer to harvest data thanks to the very permissive APIs that Facebook provided at the time. He then proceeded to sell this data to Cambridge Analytica. Facebook has a responsibility in what happened there, but "Facebook sold data to Cambridge Analytica" is a widly misconstrued story.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#300

Post by rchaud » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

noarchy wrote: post #243

I think Facebook is terrible. So I don't use it. I have a choice. These same MPs would likely howl in fury if their secret communications were stolen and published by an entity like Wikileaks (for example). Be careful what you wish for. Of course the difference here is that one is "legal".

Let them howl. When they've been involved in shady stuff that's against the public interest, I will have no sympathy for them, just as I don't when FB is the "victim". I am glad they didn't decide to sit on it because of any fears about "I don't want this happening to me, so I won't snitch".

By the way, these emails were not obtained via hacking/phishing, so the Wikileaks comparison doesn't make any sense.