Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

facebook.com

581–583 of 583 posts

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you playing mental gymnastics here? CA bought the data. CA had nothing to do with the app. They did, they bought the data. I get that they aren’t responsible for the person violating facebook’s rules. I think we already established Facebook is the boogeyman here. But we were comparing the Obama campaign app to an app unrelated to a campaign. In this thread there was the implication “obama did the same thing” and…

Of course there's an equivalence. The exact same thing happened - Obama's campaign received the data of more than 100 million people - about 99.5% of whom didn't explicitly authorize them to receive it. They then used that data in violation of Facebook's Developer TOS. Specifically, the Developer TOS say that you aren't supposed to use the data you receive from the API for any purpose other than the functionality of…

I can't really disagree with anything you've said here, but the only thing I can say is that your comments might not be received well because they are very firm – "the exact same thing" is a pretty assertive statement that I think several here disagree with, on merit or not, and being a bit more flexible in communicating this (which, by the way, thanks!) might help others receive it better, not that it's your job to do that or anything, just sharing my pov.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#582

I don't understand why HN now finds this super interesting, but when it was reported more than a year ago, it was a lot of hand-waving and "no proof that it actually worked" over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13542735

Perhaps on the first subthread that is the case, but reading through the entire thing paints an entirely different picture. Especially if you focus on comments from more frequent HN participants.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#583
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly true. Many things that are important are audited or inspected, not simply signed off on.

True, but audits aren't necessarily guarantees of anything either, and also rely on a certain amount of trust and disclosure that those being auditing aren't actively trying to game the audit.

It's how society monitors things it cares about.
Post reply on HN