> Persphinctery statements...
I don't know what these are but they sound evil.
Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
61–70 of 95 posts
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#62Not sure about 'surprise' the Corbett Report is pointing out it covered all this in detail a year ago https://youtu.be/w7n9FI6C5vw along with lots of other similar commentary online over the last couple of years...
> Not sure about 'surprise' That this was possible and happening was well known in Silicon Valley. What has changed is (a) Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election made the issue relatable and (b) Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling
They can hardly tell the truth: "Our business model is to collect as much data about you as we can, then use that to manipulate you."
The only difference with Cambridge Analytica over what they usually do is it's manipulating people into voting rather than buying stuff.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?
The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/
Hmm, another American who doesn't realize the US basically has choices between center-right Democrats and hard-right Republicans...
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#64"that’s rightfully a big issue and deserves to be a big uproar" << I can't wait to use this in my own life
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/re…
> I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.
given the association with Cambridge Analytica I would expect this to be an ongoing concern until beyond the next presidential election
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/re…
> I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.
It just might hang around for as long as Trump is president in the US, considering how this started as an offshoot of the ”Russian interference” investigation.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".
I explained to a friend that since WhatsApp demanded full access to all contact details it, and by extension Facebook now knew his full postal address, which bank he used, where he worked, the identity of his boss, his therapist and his parent's address and possibly birthdays. He looked a bit thoughtful, at least. Its not the encryption, its the meta data.
Really, it’s the the organization that wrote the software, and their motivations.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#68I'd like to know if Mark's and other executive's Facebook data were available as readily as everyone else.
It was.
You needed to be his FB friend, which at the time was limited to 500 (if I remember right).
But if you were, the Graph API gave the same access as it did to others.
Honestly, it would be almost better if that wasn't true. That would mean they knew something was wrong. The problem is they think "I'm fine with this, so everyone else must be too."
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/
Hmm, another American who doesn't realize the US basically has choices between center-right Democrats and hard-right Republicans...
Or he's referring to them according to the relative position of them compared to other political ideologies in the place of relevance to his statement.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, another American who doesn't realize the US basically has choices between center-right Democrats and hard-right Republicans...
Or he's referring to them according to the relative position of them compared to other political ideologies in the place of relevance to his statement. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, this is a common thing by hard-right factions to phrase the center-rightists as a bunch of commies. There is no genuine left left, we have had a massive rightward shift over decades, and this only becomes more true over time.
Witness that the "socialized" Obamacare is actually a repackaged version of a republican proposal from 1994.