31–40 of 583 posts
On the FB developer side: > Second, we will restrict developers' data access even further to prevent other kinds of abuse. For example, we will remove developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in 3 months. Won't this behavior break a ton of apps?
Is it all public and friends-visible activity? Or it is basics such as name, email, profile photo, etc.? I cannot find so far addressed in the coverage exactly what kind of information CA have had on a per-person basis.
If someone can share coverage that outlines this I would be very grateful.
Full Text: I want to share an update on the Cambridge Analytica situation -- including the steps we've already taken and our next steps to address this important issue. We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions t…
This...is not comforting.
Why do we not even have this?! These features sound fantastic -- where the hell are they? The most comical part of the situation with centralized social networks is that we give up our personal & friends' data to advertising monoliths, and we don't even reap any of the benefits from it in terms of improved user experience.
Facebook doesn't give you the best calendar, the best maps, and the best address book. It gives you the Facebook calendar, the Facebook maps, and the Facebook address book. For any of this to actually work from a user's end (never-mind the creepy privacy stuff), Facebook has to design the best-in-class experience for each of these product categories, which they of course have not done because that is an impossible thing to ask.
No one company is actually going to monopolize the social data market, yet every player in the field is trying (and assuming they eventually will) do so. It's maddening. Society will eventually wake up and realize we need a large-scale replacement to W3C focused on standardizing access to the social graph, which should be a public utility like roads. That's all there is to it. Until we figure that out, we're going to be having the same conversation every decade, nothing will change, and we'll keep begging Daddy Zuck to pwetty pwetty pwease fix all of our issues out of the kindness of his heart. Keep doing that, if you want.
“First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity. We will ban any developer from our platform that does not agree to a thorough audit. And if we find developers that misused personally identifiable information, we will ban them and tell everyone affected by those apps.“
Might be a too little, too late attempt at self regulation since they've apparently known about this cambridge analytica situation since before the election and since then there have been facebook employees embedded with CA to help them target ads.
MSNBC is already playing this as: 1) starts with a denial 2) admits wrongdoing 3) claims behavior will change 4) changes are not carried out and we're in the same place a year down the road.
They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead.
Heh. I couldn't read it when logged in, then I remember I have Zuck blocked.
As for the rest of it, it's progress. It seems like a lot of good changes, but Analytically Facebook execs probabaly summarized that this is the least they had to do to stave off regulations or monopoly anti trust from congress. Any less, regulations would still be placed on them so it's brilliant strategy to do this and frame it in a way that Facebook is concerned about all the damage and we voluntarily do this for you instead of the truth which was we knew about this forever and only are doing it because of threat of regulations.
Overall, an optimal outcome for all parties currently, except for society as a whole down the line
Is it clear exactly what 'data' was actually obtained by CA on those millions of people? (I am referring specifically to the millions, not the original subset of 200,000 or so). Is it all public and friends-visible activity? Or it is basics such as name, email, profile photo, etc.? I cannot find so far addressed in the coverage exactly what kind of information CA have had on a per-person basis. If someone can share c…