41–50 of 226 posts
This is one of the litany of bad things that happens when antitrust precident is ignored and we allow a small number of companies to become large enough to dominate the economy.
So are you claiming Netflix is a “monopoly” and if so, how would you break them up? The same question for Facebook. This is a case of possible “collusion” not anti trust
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion#:~:text=Collusion%....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to back that up with any citations, or should everyone just take it on faith that what a throwaway says isn’t made up?
It's both true and false. They don't do advertising with msg, and it's e2e encrypted. But they can use the metadata
Gonna give it like two weeks before tech bosses posit that users don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private messages
Isn't that why they got renamed to "direct" messages basically industry-wide?
I'm not clear whether I understood what the article is claiming. It's clear they claim that Meta shared customer's direct messages with a business partner without notifying the individuals who sent and received the messages. It also SOUNDED to me like the article was claiming they did so AFTER Meta introduced "end-to-end encryption" (which would ALSO mean that they were lying about offering end-to-end encryption). Am…
FB has supported e2e messaging since 2016, but it wasn't the default until 4 months ago (Dec 2023). So likely very few users had it enabled (much less on both ends needed to protect a message from FB). The netflix deal starts in 2013. Even after 2016, e2e would just mean netflix would get slightly fewer messages. So I don't see anything that would necessarily indicate FB is lying about e2e.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are you claiming Netflix is a “monopoly” and if so, how would you break them up? The same question for Facebook. This is a case of possible “collusion” not anti trust
Collision is part of antitrust. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion#:~:text=Collusion%... .
Would make for some fascinating lawsuits, but I suspect you meant collusion
Very scary what can be done with that information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both true and false. They don't do advertising with msg, and it's e2e encrypted. But they can use the metadata
Yes... meta data
What is being claimed here? 'granted programmatic access to FB user's inboxes' could mean a lot of things. What privileges? I read the article and still can't tell. I don't believe that Meta allowed Netflix to read messages that a user sent or received, but that seems to be what they're implying.
I'm not clear whether I understood what the article is claiming. It's clear they claim that Meta shared customer's direct messages with a business partner without notifying the individuals who sent and received the messages. It also SOUNDED to me like the article was claiming they did so AFTER Meta introduced "end-to-end encryption" (which would ALSO mean that they were lying about offering end-to-end encryption). Am…
I find the article quite confusing and unclear to be honest. Are there any other sources? This is the original NYT article from 2018 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva... "Internal documents show that the social network gave Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify and others far greater access to people’s data than it has disclosed." Facebook promised E2E at the end of 2023.
Wait, seriously? Like 4-6 months ago? Like, yesterday in terms of how long they haven't had it? Sheesh, a day doesn't go by that I'm not reminded of how happy I am to have dropped FB so long ago.