• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Great question. They're both at fault, but in my opinion Facebook deserves a lot of the blame for carelessly building a system with extremely lax privacy controls.

      The functionality Cambridge Analytica used to get all that information was standard, fully supported functionality that Facebook made available to anyone who wanted to use it. Cambridge Analytica wasn't supposed to use it the way that they did, but there was nothing to stop them. Facebook also tried to keep CA's misuse a secret once they found out about it.

      Facebook has since added more restrictions to what information third party apps have access to, but they added those restrictions primarily to prevent competitors from being able to use Facebook's user data to bootstrap their own social networks, not because they wanted to protect user privacy.

    • There have been companies for whom “better to seek forgiveness” has been more of a mantra lately. FB being one of them.

      They seem to prefer themselves when it comes to questions about user privacy nd will often placate the masses with “improved security features giving you more control”, clearly that doesn’t extend to third parties or “partners”. And clearly, user’s privacy isn’t a concern of legislators either-and not just for things like FB. Look at the number of serious data breaches over the last few years and what action has been taken by legislative bodies.

    • There will of course be a "big" uprising over this, but that will amount to what, 2% of their subscriber base signing off. People have already shown that they don't actually care about their privacy. I doubt they care about being manipulated.

    • I feel it might be more of a generational thing. Just like owning a car or "settling down" for Boomers was; Millennials don't put much into privacy-at least not until their trust is broken.

      Hacking and privacy have spawned a whole new industry too. :)

    • Aside from how Facebook is doing at a company level, I know of quite a few people in New Zealand who have deleted their accounts recently as they are sick of it. Of course there's always a certain amount of people quitting FB that but the regularity of it in my group of contacts, mostly late 30s to early 60s, seems to increased quite a bit recently.

    • “I feel fundamentally uncomfortable sitting here in California in an office making content policy decisions for people around the world.”

      “[The] thing is like, ‘Where’s the line on hate speech?’ I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?,” Zuckerberg said. “I guess I have to, because of [where we are] now, but I’d rather not.”

      It’s like this is the first time he’s actually thought about this. That scares me.

    • Seems more of a contrived interview. Why would he not have done that in the first place If it was important (rather than avoiding the whole thing)? Or his comments about Congress-how he wants to make sure the right people to answer the questions are there. Congress didn’t ask for the “right” people, they asked for him and he didn’t show.

      You can chalk it up to naiveté. And yes, the company’s explosive growth has probably made a lot of things difficult to keep track of but I think he’s been more calculated in his decision making. Whether that’s his own decision or those of the folks he trusts, I cannot say since I don’t know him other than what’s been written about some of his personal decisions over the years.

    • Huh. Until that interview, there were a lot of questions about where Sheryl and Zuck were. They were missing from an all-hands meeting, they were publicly mute. Then comes the Alex Stamos deleted tweets and unclear walkbacks about whether he's leaving and has a fraught relationship with Sheryl.

      Then The New York Times took a rare swipe at Sheryl for not wanting to be open and then zapped that paragraph and then seemingly replaced it with another, later. Here's the newsdiff: