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

Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#71

Post by mistermann »

mehrdadn wrote: post #58
downandout wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With regard to your edit... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742

Thanks for the response. You make good points; I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets uncovered. The most I know that has been uncovered so far is the admission by CA heads that they bribe officials [1], but given that it wasn't exactly a sworn testimony (or even a statement about a concrete case) I could see them getting away with it legally. [1] https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-cl...

If this keeps up we may have a worldwide shortage of straws before too long!!

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#72

Post by newscracker »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

> To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand.

This is what worries me most of the time. Another commenter under this thread pointed to some kind of poll about Facebook. But polls don't matter much. People may have negative sentiments about Facebook, but what really matters is if this sentiment is reflected in almost the same proportion by an exodus of users from the platform or a significant drop in usage of the platform, while showing an increasing trend (even if it is for a short time). I believe most people will be angry, but will keep expressing that anger only on Facebook while their "friends" like and react and comment, creating exactly the fuel that Facebook needs — engagement and attention-minutes on its platform!

> Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as usual as this fades out over the next 1-2 months.

I believe the same too. Based on all the goofs from Facebook over the years, this one is just a bit more serious but would not be the reason why millions of people would boycott it. That requires a "disaster" on a larger scale, which I'm sure will come in the future because of Facebook being Facebook.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#74

Post by newscracker »

dredmorbius wrote: post #57
nkkollaw wrote: post #29

Title seems to be "Mark Zuckerberg Thinks We’re Idiots"..?

HN routinely de-fang headlines, particularly on hot-button topics, in the interest of more informed discussion.

I don't think this is a good idea — changing the title completely from what the author of the content put up, without retaining even a part of it. The current title for this article is horrendously long and quite frankly, boring.

While we're on the topic of Facebook, misinformation, etc., this title change could also be classified as misinformation by HN, though the claimed purpose is for good instead of for evil. Why? Because most people decide to read articles based on the titles, and many people also derive conclusions on what the article is about from the title. It doesn't matter much if some sentence was lifted off the article and used. This should be as the author of the post intended.

But HN is a private site, and can do whatever it wants on content shared here. I'll just voice my strong disagreement on this title change, especially on the topic of Facebook and recent revelations. I don't need more justifications.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#75

Post by duxup »

wdr1 wrote: post #68
duxup wrote: post #48

I'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."

Did he ever install an app that got access to his text messages?

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#76

Post by woodandsteel »

craftyguy wrote: post #30
woodandsteel wrote: post #28

The question is how to solve this problem. I don't think governmental regulations will do it, through they may help. That's because data collection and sharing is Facebook's whole business model, and ditto thousands of other companies, large and small. So they will all just figure out ways of skirting around the law and continuing what they have been doing. The only solution that could work is a new financial model t…

How about something like HIPPA (in the US)? There are strict penalties for violations, but it hasn't prevented small companies from thriving, provided they comply with the act..

Companies comply because they are in the health care business, that is how they make money, and HIPPA doesn't stop them from doing that. But Facebook is in the data collection business. If it complied with a strong data privacy law, it would go out of business, so it wouldn't.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#77

Post by woodandsteel »

manjushri wrote: post #41
woodandsteel wrote: post #28

The question is how to solve this problem. I don't think governmental regulations will do it, through they may help. That's because data collection and sharing is Facebook's whole business model, and ditto thousands of other companies, large and small. So they will all just figure out ways of skirting around the law and continuing what they have been doing. The only solution that could work is a new financial model t…

Before we start talking about solutions we should defind the problem. How would you define the problem at a high level?

The article explains the problem very clearly.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#78

Post by musage »

Mononokay wrote: post #69
asveikau wrote: post #63

Earlier 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)_/¯

Radical comes from radix which means root. The exact meaning of radical left-wing may be up to debate, but it doesn't mean "ever so slightly left of mainstream", downvotes or cuteness don't change that.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#79

Post by throwaway_111 »

I am more shocked by what Facebook hasn't revealed. For ex, FB tracks most viewed profile by user and this data is accessible to employees who work on munging data. Not revealed in any Facebook dataset that you could request and download from the site.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#80

Post by gletard »

duxup wrote: post #75
wdr1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Did he ever install an app that got access to his text messages?

Isn't that limited to android phones? If you are using iphone , can app have access to texts easily?
Post reply on HN