Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#561

Post by saiya-jin » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:03 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #535

gbhn wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an agency issue. If I use an attributed channel it's like meeting you and saying "hey remember your friend the CS guy? Our company is looking for someone like that. Could you pass the word along?" vs pretending to be chatting with you when all I'm looking for is relevant recruiting leads which I will then use unbeknownst to you. For hiring this isn't as touchy a subject, but surely there's a qualitative differen…

The end result for the friends, which comprise 99.5% of the victims in both the Obama and Kogan cases, is precisely the same. Nothing was represented to them, their data was just used because someone they were friends with installed the app.

you're wasting your time, since clearly in that case somebody they like won, so all is good and all is allowed.

it really doesn't matter how amoral and abhorable the whole think with Obama was (that says somebody who would generally vote for democrats if based in US)

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#562

Post by saiya-jin » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

askafriend wrote: post #526

noisy_boy wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He was 19, didn't have a army of PR/lawyers acting as filters between his mouth and brain. Now his words (especially crisis-time statements) are shaped by a team of professionals. I think I would pay more attention to the former to get an insight into his "real" thoughts.

Have you actually talked to a 19yr old recently? Serious question. Because you seem to lack serious perspective about how a 19yo acts, thinks, or behaves when adults aren’t around. Also can you explain to me how people submitting personal information to a random form from a college kid is not dumb? Facebook the product didn’t even exist at that point by the way and the information collected was more like email addres…

People don't change that much. Amoral asshole will still amoral asshole when he is 19, 42 or 91. We don't talk about 5 year old kid who is defining the basics of his personality and hasn't experienced the world at all. Exception might happen, but they are truly unicorny exceptions with some proper shocks triggering changes, and usually for the worse (ie incidents with serious health damage).

Facebook is an amoral company with amoral aspects of the ways they conclude business. You can dance with the words as long as you like, but can't change this simple fact. It ain't result of a single issue or accident, but years and years of crappy behavior of this company. Most people here agree with this sentiment.

I don't get why people consider him better than other ultra rich who live in their own reality bubbles. Because he wears hoody? Is it really so hard to accept? Seriously, he is just another arrogant asshole (who got lucky with the right idea at the right time), not because he is rich, simply because he is who he is.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#563

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

astro_robot wrote: post #297

I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act l…

This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves!

Zuckerberg is the one with control over the terms in a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion that gates access to a popular tool, that people want to use and don't bother reading or understanding the terms.

Whether or not you like contracts of adhesion, Facebook is taking advantage of people. When society finds terms in contracts (especially contracts of adhesion) to be immoral, they're allowed to voice that. And sometimes that causes the law to act to void contracts or prevent parties from certain actions even with contractual connect.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#564

Post by leggomylibro » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

Diederich wrote: post #481

leggomylibro wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your intention and don't mean to criticize, but please consider avoiding the term 'free software' when referring to businesses like Facebook and Google. https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

The parent said: 'use free software' How does that in conflict with your FSF link?

The parent says, 'They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision.' In that context, 'free software' is referring to the previously-mentioned services (Google and Facebook), which do not cost money but are antithetical to the term as it is used by organizations like the FSF.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#565

Post by darepublic » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

propman wrote: post #39

The trusting developers not to sell any data but putting zero safeguards in place to prevent this and extremely punitive repercussions despite being repeatedly told by the public, media, and even high level employees tells me Facebook can't plead ignorance to this and they not only knew this was happening, but they probably intended for it to happen. They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies n…

So are you cheering for more regulations

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#566

Post by darepublic » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

I cannot fathom why so many people in this thread are desiring of regulations on the Internet.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#567

Post by rock_hard » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

bluetwo wrote: post #99

rock_hard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what?

It was years ago before they started locking down the data. I put together a web page I was going to post to show people what info they were releasing, but I felt I would get lynched by friends for posting it all. Basically everything you see on yourself, plus pages you visit and like, groups you belong to, your picture, your friend list, as well as their friends, so it was really three steps out and included things…

I generally don’t see the problem of a user being able to share information about himself with apps she wants to use.

That’s a fair product to build and provides lots of great value!

Now can it be abused...of course it can, a rouge app developer could try to use this data for whatever, or sell it. That’s a problem.

I think FB did a great job over the years though to improve UX for users to make it more clear what is happening and what information is being shared.

Back in the day you could for example get a users friend list for example (only public profile information though)...I think they did the right thing in limiting that to only users who also use the app.

It’s what makes apps like Spotify great...the fact that I can easily find my friends on it.

I think there is tradeoff in anything we build. And 2B people believe it’s a good tradeoff! And don’t tell me that users are stupid and don’t know...because then I am gonna flag you as stupid first :)

We also don’t sue Ford or the state that owns the streets for any accident that happens...that be nuts! We ask drivers and pedestrians to be responsible and that works for the most part. Of course there is the occasional deadly accident...but we accept that risk for the benefits of mobility.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#568

Post by rock_hard » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

pyjammas wrote: post #531

rock_hard wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, back in the day when the API still existed it would only give access to your friends public information

If by public information you mean 'information a friend has shared with you', then yes. I would not exactly call that public, though.

No, I think it was only the actually public stuff

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#569

Post by rock_hard » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

cmac2992 wrote: post #214

hvass wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. But what 'exactly' do they know. Does CA know that each person liked EXAMPLE POST ID #12379 on DATE XX/XX/XXXX and that you also like BRAND1, BRAND2, and that you also posted STATUS UPDATE1 on DATE .... What exactly do they have?

Here's a screenshot of the old api docs. https://photos.app.goo.gl/x6WQmxyX0JIL26d62 If I'm remembering correctly the API would return all of the things you mentioned if that info was shared to your friends

I don’t think it would let you see which posts a user liked only the pages they liked

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#570

Post by tyngde » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #75

Meta: Zuckerberg's statement is, unsurprisingly, hosted at "facebook.com" and uses JavaScript to render. My browser is configured to not execute JavaScript from facebook.com because that site has a reputation for undermining privacy. Therefore, I cannot read the statement that I assume at least has some tangential relationship to the way facebook.com handles privacy. Alas.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104712037900071?_fb_no...