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

81–90 of 95 posts

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

#81

Post by kristianc »

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."

That being said, there was no 'MySpace Tom' type relationship of Zuck being your 'first friend'. I doubt that was by accident.

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

#82

Post by crowbahr »

gletard wrote: post #80
duxup wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, ios prevented message and call data scraping.

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

#83

Post by nkkollaw »

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 thought the rule was to not editorialize titles..?

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

#84

Post by grzm »

nkkollaw wrote: post #83
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought the rule was to not editorialize titles..?

With a few exceptions. In particular:

> "[P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. Don't editorialize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#85

Post by dredmorbius »

nkkollaw wrote: post #83
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought the rule was to not editorialize titles..?

If my assumpton here is valid, it was HN specifically who did this.

Some previous mentions of similar changes (or not, with regrets):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11500234#11511521

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9793358#9794491

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10640478#10642264

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14190764#14196106

And more:

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dang%20changed%20title%20discu...

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

#86

Post by waterhouse »

untangle wrote: post #61

> Persphinctery statements... I don't know what these are but they sound evil.

My first guess was that it was meant to be "ass-covering". A "sphincter" is a generic type of "circular muscle that normally maintains constriction of a natural body passage or orifice", of which there are "over 60 types in the human body" (Wiki), but there's only one sphincter people usually talk about (outside scientific literature). Looking more closely at the definition of the "per-" prefix, I get "through"[1], in which case a "persphinctery" statement is most directly defined as one that "came out of someone's ass".

[1] http://membean.com/wrotds/per-through

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

#88

Post by eisvogel »

Right next door to a company where I was recently working was a successful startup whose entire business model consisted of using Facebook's commercial API for the analysis of the psychological profiles of its base product (the users), to detect potential terrorists. This outfit's only real customer is Australian law enforcement, and everyone who uses Facebook is attributed some non-zero terrorist score. I have told this to people who have continued to use Facebook. It's just crap and it can't die fast enough.

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

#90

Post by nkkollaw »

grzm wrote: post #84
nkkollaw wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the rule was to not editorialize titles..?

With a few exceptions. In particular: > "[P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. Don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But was it misleading or clickbait?

I'm just curious.

Post reply on HN