7 ms·
> Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do Thanks for striking down the bad guys, Facebook, our ever vigilant guardian of personal i
by mbid 9y ago
> Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do
Thanks for striking down the bad guys, Facebook, our ever vigilant guardian of personal information.
- killjoywashere 9y agoExcuse me, I think you dropped this -> "</s>"
- Stratoscope 9y agoJust as a great comedian doesn't laugh at their own joke, great sarcasm is best served without a sarcasm tag.
- mrhappyunhappy 9y agoMost insightful thing I read today.
- colordrops 9y agoAll my favorite comedians laugh at their own jokes... Dave Chappelle, Chris D'elia, and Bill Burr.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoI disagree when the medium is text; it's harder without tone to hear.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Stratoscope 9y agoYou have a point there. It is definitely harder to hear tone in text. But does that mean one should always put in a </s> tag? It may ruin the joke. As an example, this was one (or two) of my highest-voted HN comments ever: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8690893 If I'd added a '/s' tag to those comments, it would have spoiled it, wouldn't it? Part of what made it funny was that I played it straight, and people believed I was sincere almost to the end - or beyond. But now I fear I have led us far off topic. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion of Facebook, watchful defender of our privacy.
- Applejinx 9y agoAnd the funniest part is, you're essentially describing jitter, which is timing differences between successfully and accurately reconstructed bits, and jitter can really wreck audio quality. So you only think you're being sarcastic, while on a higher level you're alluding to a deeper understanding of known audio playback issues that are quite real and legitimate :)
- Stratoscope 9y agoSo the joke was on me all along... Now that's funny.
- kolpa 9y agoSarcasm doesn't work in short text. It just causes confusion and adds nothing, since it just relies on the reader to decided whether the utterance means its face value or opposite.
- noobermin 9y agoI think Poe's law isn't that absolute. Given HN style, I could tell his post was sarcastic.
- Jd 9y agoAmong other things it's virtually a HN rule at this point that the top voted post is critical. A purely positive post is a clear red flag and indicates sarcasm or some other snark.
- killjoywashere 9y agoI have never been prouder of a negative 4 votes. I will carry them with pride.
- nathanaldensr 9y agoThat's exactly what I wanted to say. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house... none of these parties--Facebook included--can be trusted with any data. They're all out to make a buck with it!
- paulddraper 9y agoI 100% believe in the fox to guard the hen house...from the other foxes. No point in sharing dinner.
- notatoad 9y agoExactly. Facebook really wants to protect your personal information - it's their competitive advantage. If other companies all have your personal info too, then it's less valuable to Facebook. The last thing they want to do is let it get out. If you've decided to share your info with Facebook, well, that's on you. But Facebook isn't going to share it.
- arjunrc 9y agoAre you serious, defending Facebook here? There can't be a single repository of online data, which by design gives the repository owner too much power and control. Blaming the users for falling for it is like saying we can't have regulation because markets can self-regulate themselves. After the last 3 years, anyone who defends Facebook comes across as disingenuous, naive or for a lack of a better word, a shill in my book. Saying Facebook wants to protects your personal information is the most hypocritical statement, I've heard yet.
- hnmullany 9y agosarcasm
- noio 9y agoI don't think you and parent disagree. Facebook will do a good job of 'protecting' your personal data because that allows them —exclusively— to benefit from it. Though the definition of 'protecting' might differ, Facebook's might sacrifice that protection to benefit at any point. As a user, you're not in control of that transaction and will never benefit.
- oh-kumudo 9y agoIt is as weird as we define how to kill a lobster is more humane.
- Simon_says 9y ago"humane" does not mean "human".
- mirimir 9y agoThey do want to protect its profitability for them ;) And politics aside, this is analogous to Craigslist vs 3Taps, Radpad and so on.
- almostApatriot1 9y agowell, you need to have it in order to protect it
- driverdan 9y agoThe best way for them to maintain their walled garden is by restricting 3rd party access to the data. This isn't to protect users, it's to maintain and improve their wall.
- r00fus 9y agoYou don't remember all their silly breaches and lapses of security about a decade ago do you? Or are they reformed now?
- netsharc 9y agoIt's a fucking joke, their way of protecting is to say, "app developer, you're not allowed to do these things.". It's like a bank who leaves people's money in a field, and "protects" it by putting up a sign that says "dear visitors, you are not allowed to steal this money.".