4 ms·

If they're serious about this, and I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it, this will affect a lot of startups, specifically in advertising, but

If they're serious about this, and I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it, this will affect a lot of startups, specifically in advertising, but probably a lot of mobile apps as well: “First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity. We will ban any developer from our platform that does not agree to a thorough audit. And if we find developers that misused personally identifiable information, we will ban them and tell everyone affected by those apps.“ Might be a too little, too late attempt at self regulation since they've apparently known about this cambridge analytica situation since before the election and since then there have been facebook employees embedded with CA to help them target ads. MSNBC is already playing this as: 1) starts with a denial 2) admits wrongdoing 3) claims behavior will change 4) changes are not carried out and we're in the same place a year down the road. They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead.

__jal 9y ago
> but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.
- harryh 9y ago
  Basically no CEOs ever want to testify in front of a congressional committee. There is only downside to such a situation for the company. There is zero upside. This is not a deeply telling datum. It is a boring an standard one.
  - kaennar 9y ago
    While that may be true for regulations/ethics related appearances, this is not true for things such as funding. For example both Elon Musk and Bruno have gone before congress multiple times to discuss private space programs/ contracts and to justify their cases. Admittedly Elon did send Gwynne Shotwell several times but she is still the COO of the company. More accurately there is risk in talking to the US congress when the topic sounds more like an inquisition than when congress is asking for opinions. The matter then is why is it a risk for Facebook to discuss the CA issue? Are they worried about a witch hunt or a public ethics execution?
  - dontreact 9y ago
    In this case there is user trust to be gained. By refusing to appear in front of congress, mark and facebook has lost a little of my trust.
    - madez 9y ago
      Did they have any before?
- sigstoat 9y ago
  testifying in front of congress is just an opportunity for politicians to win points by kicking you around like a ball. very few people (let alone CEOs) stand to gain anything from it, and corporate counsel is paid to put up with abuse. > ...my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress... ugh, come on. it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated, and the questions you'll be asked. the biggest heels on both sides of the aisle are free to harangue you all they want.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated Not the whole Congress, but how exactly do you think procedure and parameters for hearings are set and objections during hearings are resolved? Both the specific personalities in leadership positions and the attitudes of the majority matter a lot. EDIT: It's true that there is a tradition of providing some semblance of balance in committee process, including hearings, with the majority (not necessarily by party) mainly controlling what items are considered and what hearings are held, and ultimately the outcome; but not only is partisanship greater than in the past, but precisely those traditions have noticeably weakened over the last couple decades and particularly in the current Congress.
  - __jal 9y ago
    > are free to harangue you all they want Any exec hauled on the carpet is going to want a drink afterwards. That's not the concern.
InitialLastName 9y ago
> They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. Worth noting that Zuck wants something from Xi and Medvedev, has everything he needs in terms of support from the US Gov.
- bksenior 9y ago
  Facebooks real existential threat is just that . He thinks that having everything he wants now is correlated to the future. He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Google and Amazon don't make mistakes in the same way. The next 10 years are going to be a lot like the old ad age about being chased out of a campsite by a bear. It's unimportant to be the fastest (best) of the group, you just cant be the slowest.
  - vl 9y ago
    >He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. It seems that it worker out for Bill Gates pretty well.
    - bksenior 9y ago
      Yea, the Microsoft anti-trust years would love to have a sit down with you.
    - slededit 9y ago
      There's a lot of innuendo that he was forced out after the second anti-trust (There was an initial slap on the wrist which he flaunted).
stuntkite 9y ago
I worked on an app eight years ago for a woman that went to Harvard with zuck. I only mention that because she did. Every. Day. Eventually they had me do a Facebook integration and when I saw how easy it was to escalate the permissions I was horrified. I was an inexperienced developer at the time and wasn’t calling the shots. We saved everything. The lead devs laughed about the policy that straight up said it was our responsibility to delete the data after use. That would be inconvenient! The system was designed for this. There is no way for them to do accounting on this issue. This blog is a farce. The company and project doesn’t exist anymore. I’d bet money that more than a few people have that tar ball.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
make3 9y ago
"They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead." I get the feeling, but you'll agree that a legally binding legal procedure that is an actual existential threat to your hundred billion dollar company that employs 25k people requires a different approach then a seduction meeting with a despot to try to loosen regulations.
jseliger 9y ago
I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it I've said variations on this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362, but FB will get serious about it when users stop using it. Until that time, everyone can complain, but the concept of "revealed preferences" is relevant. Do people actually care? If so, they'll change their behavior, FB will likely notice, and changes will happen. People have been complaining about FB and privacy since practically day 0. Throughout that entire period, FB has only become more popular.

__jal 9y ago

> but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.

harryh 9y ago
Basically no CEOs ever want to testify in front of a congressional committee. There is only downside to such a situation for the company. There is zero upside. This is not a deeply telling datum. It is a boring an standard one.
- kaennar 9y ago
  While that may be true for regulations/ethics related appearances, this is not true for things such as funding. For example both Elon Musk and Bruno have gone before congress multiple times to discuss private space programs/ contracts and to justify their cases. Admittedly Elon did send Gwynne Shotwell several times but she is still the COO of the company. More accurately there is risk in talking to the US congress when the topic sounds more like an inquisition than when congress is asking for opinions. The matter then is why is it a risk for Facebook to discuss the CA issue? Are they worried about a witch hunt or a public ethics execution?
- dontreact 9y ago
  In this case there is user trust to be gained. By refusing to appear in front of congress, mark and facebook has lost a little of my trust.
  - madez 9y ago
    Did they have any before?
sigstoat 9y ago
testifying in front of congress is just an opportunity for politicians to win points by kicking you around like a ball. very few people (let alone CEOs) stand to gain anything from it, and corporate counsel is paid to put up with abuse. > ...my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress... ugh, come on. it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated, and the questions you'll be asked. the biggest heels on both sides of the aisle are free to harangue you all they want.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated Not the whole Congress, but how exactly do you think procedure and parameters for hearings are set and objections during hearings are resolved? Both the specific personalities in leadership positions and the attitudes of the majority matter a lot. EDIT: It's true that there is a tradition of providing some semblance of balance in committee process, including hearings, with the majority (not necessarily by party) mainly controlling what items are considered and what hearings are held, and ultimately the outcome; but not only is partisanship greater than in the past, but precisely those traditions have noticeably weakened over the last couple decades and particularly in the current Congress.
- __jal 9y ago
  > are free to harangue you all they want Any exec hauled on the carpet is going to want a drink afterwards. That's not the concern.

InitialLastName 9y ago

> They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. Worth noting that Zuck wants something from Xi and Medvedev, has everything he needs in terms of support from the US Gov.

bksenior 9y ago
Facebooks real existential threat is just that . He thinks that having everything he wants now is correlated to the future. He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Google and Amazon don't make mistakes in the same way. The next 10 years are going to be a lot like the old ad age about being chased out of a campsite by a bear. It's unimportant to be the fastest (best) of the group, you just cant be the slowest.
- vl 9y ago
  >He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. It seems that it worker out for Bill Gates pretty well.
  - bksenior 9y ago
    Yea, the Microsoft anti-trust years would love to have a sit down with you.
  - slededit 9y ago
    There's a lot of innuendo that he was forced out after the second anti-trust (There was an initial slap on the wrist which he flaunted).

stuntkite 9y ago

I worked on an app eight years ago for a woman that went to Harvard with zuck. I only mention that because she did. Every. Day. Eventually they had me do a Facebook integration and when I saw how easy it was to escalate the permissions I was horrified. I was an inexperienced developer at the time and wasn’t calling the shots. We saved everything. The lead devs laughed about the policy that straight up said it was our responsibility to delete the data after use. That would be inconvenient! The system was designed for this. There is no way for them to do accounting on this issue. This blog is a farce. The company and project doesn’t exist anymore. I’d bet money that more than a few people have that tar ball.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

make3 9y ago

"They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead." I get the feeling, but you'll agree that a legally binding legal procedure that is an actual existential threat to your hundred billion dollar company that employs 25k people requires a different approach then a seduction meeting with a despot to try to loosen regulations.

jseliger 9y ago

I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it I've said variations on this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362, but FB will get serious about it when users stop using it. Until that time, everyone can complain, but the concept of "revealed preferences" is relevant. Do people actually care? If so, they'll change their behavior, FB will likely notice, and changes will happen. People have been complaining about FB and privacy since practically day 0. Throughout that entire period, FB has only become more popular.