8 ms·

From the other side of the coin, I think if your business model is based on the exploitation of peoples data, the EU doesn't want your 'SV disruption'. From ht

From the other side of the coin, I think if your business model is based on the exploitation of peoples data, the EU doesn't want your 'SV disruption'. From https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-... it would appear that these lessons are being learned, somewhat slowly.

CamperBob2 9y ago
An inteesting article, certainly, but it buries a rather explosive accusation: Zuckerberg had reason to take the meeting (with Rupert Murdoch) especially seriously, according to a former Facebook executive, because he had firsthand knowledge of Murdoch’s skill in the dark arts. Back in 2007, Facebook had come under criticism from 49 state attorneys general for failing to protect young Facebook users from sexual predators and inappropriate content. Concerned parents had written to Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who opened an investigation, and to The New York Times, which published a story. But according to a former Facebook executive in a position to know, the company believed that many of the Facebook accounts and the predatory behavior the letters referenced were fakes, traceable to News Corp lawyers or others working for Murdoch, who owned Facebook’s biggest competitor, MySpace. “We traced the creation of the Facebook accounts to IP addresses at the Apple store a block away from the MySpace offices in Santa Monica,” the executive says. “Facebook then traced interactions with those accounts to News Corp lawyers. When it comes to Facebook, Murdoch has been playing every angle he can for a long time.” (Both News Corp and its spinoff 21st Century Fox declined to comment.) Does anyone have any good pointers for further reading on this? If I were Mark Zuckerberg and some fossilized ink-stained wretch like Murdoch tried to weaponize a state attorney general against my company, there would be very serious consequences.

CamperBob2 9y ago

An inteesting article, certainly, but it buries a rather explosive accusation: Zuckerberg had reason to take the meeting (with Rupert Murdoch) especially seriously, according to a former Facebook executive, because he had firsthand knowledge of Murdoch’s skill in the dark arts. Back in 2007, Facebook had come under criticism from 49 state attorneys general for failing to protect young Facebook users from sexual predators and inappropriate content. Concerned parents had written to Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal, who opened an investigation, and to The New York Times, which published a story. But according to a former Facebook executive in a position to know, the company believed that many of the Facebook accounts and the predatory behavior the letters referenced were fakes, traceable to News Corp lawyers or others working for Murdoch, who owned Facebook’s biggest competitor, MySpace. “We traced the creation of the Facebook accounts to IP addresses at the Apple store a block away from the MySpace offices in Santa Monica,” the executive says. “Facebook then traced interactions with those accounts to News Corp lawyers. When it comes to Facebook, Murdoch has been playing every angle he can for a long time.” (Both News Corp and its spinoff 21st Century Fox declined to comment.) Does anyone have any good pointers for further reading on this? If I were Mark Zuckerberg and some fossilized ink-stained wretch like Murdoch tried to weaponize a state attorney general against my company, there would be very serious consequences.