Don't be fooled. Zuckerberg is the head of the organization and has both created and internalized the economic logic of his organization, but the problem is systemic. If you put in someone else, they'll have a different style and might do a few things slightly different, but the economic logic is the same. Spying on the population is profitable, so such operations must be expanded to the maximum possible extent.<p>We can't simply undertake anti-trust litigation against these companies. We must go further and outlaw this business model.
"Internal exchanges uncovered in response to FTC probe could cast doubt on founder’s commitment to user privacy, people familiar with the matter say"<p>Who thinks Zuckerberg has (or ever had) _any_ commitment to user privacy?
Facebook is a one-man show. Zuckerberg owning 60% of the company and no one can say anything to him. Moreover, one man has the entire monopoly over our entire online social life. Other networks have come and failed. Anti Trust regulators should seriously open Facebook's file and break it.
Honestly I don’t see the problem, Facebook’s privacy stance has been well known for years. I don’t use their product much because of this, but friends and family couldn’t care less. Their response is that they don’t care if someone reads their messages or tailors ads to them and no matter how hard I try it won’t change their minds. If you don’t like their privacy stance just don’t use the product, it’s not like there aren’t alternatives.<p>The media outrage feels the same as if they came out and said that it turns out Coca Cola knew its products could lead to obesity. Of course they did, and no reasonable person thought it didn’t. You can’t police every problematic product, at some point the end user has to take responsibility.
The article is misrepresentative. This was way back in an era where fb had slightly more open apis.<p>Of course some people were going to exploit that and break fbs own policies.<p>Cambridge did that and broke fbs rules.<p>Once it became more obvious that 3rd parties would break the rules fb adjusted their policy and closed the loophole.<p>The open nature of the policy was known to everyone on the planet including the ftc at the time. If those policies were problematic why wouldnt someone at the ftc say something?<p>Those whose job it is to regulate just sit there and watch for a decade before doing anything?<p>As someone mentioned above this is a systematic issue and a problem with the business model.<p>This is not some sneaky thing fb did on the side or behind closed doors. The apis were there for the public and everyone to see the whole time. Though there wwtr a few voiced concerns there certainly was not outrage.<p>I have several problems with fb but this specific issue is being misrepresented.
Honestly is anyone surprised by this? He controls everything and how will he not know their own policies?! Facebook needs a serious lesson from the regulators.
I see a lot of these articles about Facebook and privacy lately, but I'm still wondering what, precisely, Facebook is doing that people object to and what kinds of changes would satisfy those who are upset.<p>Near as I can tell, this is about data in Facebook's databases finding its way to other organizations without the users' knowledge or consent. But the way this happens is pretty benign:<p>1. User installs Facebook app, and that app phones home with info about user's friends (who did not consent to this). This is what happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People started asking why apps are allowed to see info about the user's friends (who did not install the app). But to a programmer, the answer is obvious: it's the "app inherits owner's permissions" model that's been part of the Unix tradition for decades. Anyway, Facebook has since changed this behavior.<p>2. User adds some bots as friends (maybe because their profile photo is of a cute girl), and the bots phone home with public info about user's friends. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the "friends of friends" permission model. Facebook users can set "friends only" permissions to prevent this, but most don't bother.<p>Is it one of these two vectors that's getting people upset, or something else that I'm missing? Keep in mind that advertisers never get to see people's private info. They just make an ad and say something like "show this to people aged 18-25 who are into video games."
All organizations, no matter if they are public or private, need checks and balances at the top.<p>I predict that legislation will become the de facto check on FB and there will be many negative unintended consequences for the rest of the tech industry, harming companies who are ethical stewards of privacy.
You need the help of an hacker? Contact spylink80@keemail.me he helped me out I was able to check my husband device without him knowing he is good and reliable.
You need the help of an hacker? Contact spylink80@keemaip.me he helped me out I was able to check my husband device without him knowing he is good and reliable.
Given the paywall, I didn't get the pleasure of reading the full article. Based on the title and opening paragraphs however, I don't think this is really news. Especially in light of the recent statement by Facebook counsel Orin Snyder: "There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy" [1]<p>In fact, there has been legal statements on the privacy of Facebook floating around for awhile. One judge, in 2013, explicitly said there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.[2]<p>Zuckerburg has also previously made statements regarding his disdain for privacy, such as: "'They "trust me." Dumb f--ks'" [3]<p>In the wake of the mobile phone number sharing with your friends list by default, Mark had this to say: "We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do." [4]<p>I could go on ad nauseum, and I'm sure none of these quotes are new to anyone. So, I just don't get why it is news that Zuckerberg was aware of questionable practices.<p>Of course he was aware of them. He championed them.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-reportedly-thinks-theres-no-expectation-of-privacy-on-social-media/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-reportedly-thinks-theres-...</a>
[2]<a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202532899353/No-Reasonable-Expectation-of-Privacy-on-Facebook-Judge-Says/" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/120253289935...</a>
[3,4]<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerbergs-statements-on-privacy-2003-2018.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg...</a>
This seems to be the one guy on the planet who surpasses Trump in his ability to get into the news every 2 days. No tweeting required even. How are his staff not just jumping out of windows? I mean it's been one article after the other for 3 years now. Almost impressed by the endurance.
Not sure if anyone has noticed but the submitter has given HN readers who prefer Javascript-enabled browsing a workaround for the WSJ paywall.<p>Add ?mod=rsswn to the end of the URL.
He also openly ignores requests to testify in front of UK & Canadian parliamentary committees...<p>Think about that for a minute. Someone who controls 3b people. Runs psychological experiments using AI. Bans accounts of people who violate corporate-created policies that weren't debated or voted on by the public. Violates FCC settlements. And then refuses to be held accountable - or answer questions- from first world, democratic governments.
Stop taking away personal responsibility from the thousands of facebook employees, each of whom chooses to be evil every single day.<p>None of these people are being forced to work there. They choose to. They are just as responsible.
Good luck finding those emails. If it’s for a few years in the past it’s probably auto-deleted due to corporate retention policies designed to defend against discovery. When I came back to google I had all my old calendar but none of my emails because retention is 2yrs.