Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#421

Post by yerich »

kazen44 wrote: post #394
sangnoir wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm American [...] I may be missing context. You are missing context: look up "Parliamentary Privilege" and "Parliamentary Sovereignty" which do not have US equivalents. The "invitation" was effectively a subpoena.

Didn't the fact that is not a UK citizen also basically safe him from being dragged to Parliament by the police? Im pretty sure, if you are an UK citizen and they summon you, they will eventually just grab you and put yourself in front of Parliament.

No, since the person who's documents were seized was in the UK on a trip. Except for special cases where immunity is granted, physical presence in a country means that one is subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the country. In this case, the UK Parliament had the authority to compel the production of the documents in question, by threat of imprisonment if necessary.

A question for any legal scholars out there: the seizure of the documents would be contempt of court in the US, could it not? The person who was threatened with arrest has the defense of duress, so could the US court charge the MPs who ordered the seizure? I don't think the UK would extradite, but if the MPs were to visit the US without immunity, could they be arrested for violating US law (even though their actions are apparently within their rights under UK law)?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#422

Post by misiti3780 »

mindgam3 wrote: post #361

Here's Zuckerberg's response in which he "shares some more context around the decisions we made": https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10105559172610321 Quick textual analysis: in a pithy 623-word statement, Zuck manages to mention "shady", "sketchy" or "abusive apps" no less than 7 times. 8 times, if you include the time he mentioned Cambridge Analytica without using a sketchy adjective. Notice the spin as Facebook t…

can you attach the text for people that have black listed all FB IPs ?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#423

Post by mindgam3 »

misiti3780 wrote: post #422
mindgam3 wrote: post #361

Here's Zuckerberg's response in which he "shares some more context around the decisions we made": https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10105559172610321 Quick textual analysis: in a pithy 623-word statement, Zuck manages to mention "shady", "sketchy" or "abusive apps" no less than 7 times. 8 times, if you include the time he mentioned Cambridge Analytica without using a sketchy adjective. Notice the spin as Facebook t…

can you attach the text for people that have black listed all FB IPs ?

How about this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20181205191905/https://www.faceb...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#424

Post by [deleted] »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #323
throwaway572091 wrote: post #57

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... Exhibit 170 – Mark Zuckerberg discussing linking data to revenue Mark Zuckerberg email – dated 7 October 2012 'I've been thinking about platform business model a lot this weekend…if we make it so devs can generate revenue for us in different ways, then it makes it more acceptable for us to charge them quite a bit more for using platform. The basic idea i…

Seems pretty reasonable to me? Especially in the context of tossing ideas around. Note that I don't read this as "let's get devs on board and then yank the rug out from under them later". Rather, it seems like they're trying to find a way to make it win/win, where devs can either pay for the platform directly, or use it for free if they can do so with a business model that helps Facebook make money elsewhere.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#425

Post by Khaine »

Mahn wrote: post #299
AlexandrB wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

Facebook provided the means for Cambridge Analytica to occur. Facebook also shared social graph information with Obama's campaign.

Facebook is far from blameless, and should be held to account for its scummy behaviour, and for enabling scummy behaviour.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#426

Post by PavlovsCat »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #323
throwaway572091 wrote: post #57

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu... Exhibit 170 – Mark Zuckerberg discussing linking data to revenue Mark Zuckerberg email – dated 7 October 2012 'I've been thinking about platform business model a lot this weekend…if we make it so devs can generate revenue for us in different ways, then it makes it more acceptable for us to charge them quite a bit more for using platform. The basic idea i…

Seems pretty reasonable to me? Especially in the context of tossing ideas around. Note that I don't read this as "let's get devs on board and then yank the rug out from under them later". Rather, it seems like they're trying to find a way to make it win/win, where devs can either pay for the platform directly, or use it for free if they can do so with a business model that helps Facebook make money elsewhere.

> devs can generate revenue for us in different ways, then it makes it more acceptable for us to charge them quite a bit more

Generate revenue for us, so we can charge them quite a bit more.

> The basic idea is that any other revenue you generate for us earns you a credit towards whatever fees you own us for using plaform. For most developers this would probably cover cost completely.

So devs can get credit (they can't convert to money I guess?), and Facebook gets more money. That's just win/win if you don't consider the audience FB "generates revenue" from, and then it also would depend on how much you would care to save, say $10 while generating $50 for FB, or saving $10 to generate $500, and what those figures would be.

Money isn't "made", it's always shifted around. Value can be generated, not money. So making money for Facebook means taking it from somewhere.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#427

Post by rubzah »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #311
natch wrote: post #210

Just to underline the obvious point the lawmaker is making, perhaps if Zuckerberg would show up to hearings that lawmakers invite him to, then he would be able to provide the context that Facebook says is missing.

Translation: if you turn down our "invitation", we'll misuse our legal power to seize your internal documents and then publish them to embarrass you. Accurate? To be clear, I'm not saying that they can't seize and investigate or even punish if the law was broken. That's the job of government. But this just seems like a petty attempt to embarrass. However, I'm American and haven't been following the story closely, so…

This is the world's smallest violin playing just for Mark Zuckerberg.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#428

Post by carapace »

mindgam3 wrote: post #361

Here's Zuckerberg's response in which he "shares some more context around the decisions we made": https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10105559172610321 Quick textual analysis: in a pithy 623-word statement, Zuck manages to mention "shady", "sketchy" or "abusive apps" no less than 7 times. 8 times, if you include the time he mentioned Cambridge Analytica without using a sketchy adjective. Notice the spin as Facebook t…

No pull quotes from the documents that Parliament made public to illustrate the "context".

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#429

Post by onetimemanytime »

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…

>>Projects like charitable causes have raised a lot for charity. Probably would have been raised by a company FB bought or crushed. Or a company in another field.

>>I've seen the Are you Safe feature reduce so much stress during disasters.

Not exactly charity, it gets people to use FB more.

FB's problem (for the world) is that it is big and as such it can be used to manipulate opinions or mess with people's psychology. Either by others or by FB for $$$. Same would happen if Fox News or CNN were watched by a billion plus people. They would have the power to move certain people to a different direction. Google is another one, a little bias on search /news results and maybe millions of votes would move one way or another.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#430

Post by traek »

oliveshell wrote: post #287
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own a grocery store and there's a guy on the other side of town who is cheaper, the people who come to your store because it's more convenient would love for you to be forced to just give away half your space to your competitor. Doesn't mean it's "user hostile" to refuse to do so.

I agree; of course that isn’t. But being forced to give away half your physical retail space is hardly the same thing as just letting them keep using an API that you provide explicitly for such use. Also, more broadly: one would have quite a hard time making the case that Facebook isn’t nakedly, gleefully, and rapaciously user-hostile.

> But being forced to give away half your physical retail space is hardly the same thing as just letting them keep using an API that you provide explicitly for such use.

In this case, Facebook was deprecating the API and declined to provide special whitelist access to a competitor.

Post reply on HN