81–90 of 92 posts
> “Every piece of content that you share on Facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it, and you can remove it at any time,” This sentence has been bothering me because it feels like his lawyers wrote it. It's specifically worded to not include issues like this one. Ref: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/techburger/article/Zuckerbe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] and you have complete control over who sees it and [...] If you have complete control over who sees it, that should mean that no one else has any control over it...
>> [...] and you have complete control over who sees it and [...] > If you have complete control over who sees it, that should mean that no one else has any control over it... Actually that quote is false: the Facebook algorithm has almost complete control over who actually sees your content.
I'm not concerned who "sees" my data - I want to know who can access it. If all it takes is a friend with a shady device, it's not comforting at all.
Did FB every clarify if sharing permissions would mitigate that API access? because otherwise the only solution is to a) defriend everyone and b) quit FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why ad blockers are absolutely necessary. Not to scam companies out of their revenue, but because you cannot trust them in running clean ads. Fake virus alerts even are the lesser evil, delivering browser exploits or draining the battery by running crypto-miners are much worse. You read about such incidents every couple weeks...
On desktop, I use uBlock and Privacy Badger, but on my iPhone there doesn’t seem to be an option.
> “Every piece of content that you share on Facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it, and you can remove it at any time,” This sentence has been bothering me because it feels like his lawyers wrote it. It's specifically worded to not include issues like this one. Ref: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/techburger/article/Zuckerbe...
So, a question to developers reading this: would you be happy to work alongside a person who participated in the development of this system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, a question to developers reading this: would you be happy to work alongside a person who participated in the development of this system?
Depends entirely on how they feel and act about it. If they were pushing to make my company the next big surveillance org then yeah. Otherwise I probably wouldn't even think twice about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA has very similar laws and legal tradition about what makes a contract valid.
The German (civil law) and US (common law) legal traditions are pretty disparate, including their approaches to contract law - but in this case the difference is due to consumer protection rules in Germany and Europe, not anything longstanding about either tradition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, a question to developers reading this: would you be happy to work alongside a person who participated in the development of this system?
Trick question. Typically, when assigned tasks at work, one doesn't have the forbearance or clairvoyance to asses the moral implications of the task. The fairer question to ask is if the strategy team pitching such work/product understood the moral implication of the work.
> “Every piece of content that you share on Facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it, and you can remove it at any time,” This sentence has been bothering me because it feels like his lawyers wrote it. It's specifically worded to not include issues like this one. Ref: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/techburger/article/Zuckerbe...
So, a question to developers reading this: would you be happy to work alongside a person who participated in the development of this system?
Not a Facebook employee, but I've wrestled with these questions after years in investment banking and a bit of adtech.
Almost anything that pays well isn't going to the end goal of feeding orphans, or improving society in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trick question. Typically, when assigned tasks at work, one doesn't have the forbearance or clairvoyance to asses the moral implications of the task. The fairer question to ask is if the strategy team pitching such work/product understood the moral implication of the work.
This is Facebook we are talking about. One does not need to be clairvoyant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could Zuckerberg argue that this is not what he meant with 'piece of content that you share'? I imagine not, but just wondering.
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." — Bill Clinton This is weasel language, used to avoid saying anything you can be held to having said, when that becomes inconvenient.