5 ms·

It's kinda ironic that a post about "All we are doing is connecting people and information" gets deleted because it gets connected to a lot of people ("leaked")

It's kinda ironic that a post about "All we are doing is connecting people and information" gets deleted because it gets connected to a lot of people ("leaked"). You can't simultaneously hold the opinion that there's no harm in sharing information, while also holding the opinion that there is such thing as a "leak." It just strikes me as so ironic for a company that champions "privacy is dead, live with it," to have to delete its own valid internal debates because of the consequences of lack of privacy (i.e. leak = lack of privacy).

paws 9y ago
You may find it additionally ironic that about a month before the Boz memo, it was reported[1] that Zuck bought 4 houses located around his own for $30 million. Privacy is looking pretty alive in that neighborhood. [1] http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/ http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  Zuckerberg built a 6 foot wall around his 700-acre estate in Hawaii because he values his own privacy that much: http://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-wall-hawaii-protest-549068 http://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-wall-hawaii...
  - mistermann 9y ago
    If it wasn't for the unearned and unnassailable value of the network effect Facebook benefits from, this disgusting behavior (from Zuck and his minions) would be enough to drive everyone to a new platform.
notacoward 9y ago
> You can't simultaneously hold the opinion that there's no harm in sharing information, while also holding the opinion that there is such thing as a "leak. Likewise, you can't simultaneously hold the opinion that users should have control over where their content is seen, and that it's OK to publish and comment on an internal post. In a less spiteful world, some of the employees' reactions might have been taken as evidence that they do understand and care about issues of privacy or containment. Maybe that would lead to more collaboration on solutions, which is necessary because there are actually some tricky tradeoffs here. But that doesn't give the same dopamine hit as cutting down the tall poppies, right?
- avoidit 9y ago
  >> Likewise, you can't simultaneously hold the opinion that users should have control over where their content is seen, and that it's OK to publish and comment on an internal post. This argument is illogical, because Facebook forces everyone to sign its ToS to use its services, while nobody forces a Facebook employee to leak internal stuff. Said another way, whether or not I wish to have control over my FB data, FB coerces me to agree that it can do whatever it wants with my data. Its not exactly opt-in, is it? Its far worse, of course, if you consider shadow profiles, because it is even coercing people who didn't even explicitly sign up to the ToS. Unless the leak happened via some kind of coercion (which doesn't seem to be the case), your comment is incorrect. >> In a less spiteful world, some of the employees' reactions might have been taken as evidence that they do understand and care about issues of privacy or containment. What? You mean you care about something, but you just won't do something about it, nor openly tell anyone why you wouldn't do something about it, or even talk about it before the issue blows up? Yep, totally convincing. >> Maybe that would lead to more collaboration on solutions, Why do people need to "collaborate" on solutions? What do they get from it? Is Facebook going to pay people a share of the profits? If Facebook is a corporate entity which serves its self-interest against people's self-interest (which they have clearly been doing for a long time), what kind of idiot would suggest the people whose self-interest has been affected should now "come to the table" so "we can all work something out"? >> which is necessary because there are actually some tricky tradeoffs here. The only tricky tradeoff here is: should Mark Zuckerberg be the only one who should go to jail, or should the entire company be rounded up? It is quite tricky, I do agree. >> But that doesn't give the same dopamine hit as cutting down the tall poppies, right? I don't know about tall poppies, but "culling" the "weeds" is the only way to have a healthy garden.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I think we all understand this scenario can lead us to highly charged emotions. I believe you comment would have been better without name-calling and leap to jail time.
  - notacoward 9y ago
    > Its not exactly opt-in, is it? You're free not to use it. If that opt-in isn't enough, exactly how many levels do you want? If you do choose to use a free service, whether it's Facebook or a public library, you have to consider how it's paid for. Actively using something and also actively undermining its means of support ... well, I'll just leave that thought there. > You mean you care about something, but you just won't do something about it You seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what individual employees can do at a 30K-person company, or about anyone taking the right action without deliberating first. > Why do people need to "collaborate" on solutions? What do they get from it? Ummm ... the solutions, which are not only applicable to Facebook? This is a general problem faced by many companies. The solutions could also be useful to the people who blather about creating a distributed alternative to Facebook. I've been a member of the decentralization and distributed-system community for far longer than Facebook or Y Combinator have existed. I also know something about the scale and connectedness of the data at Facebook. We're multiple basic innovations away from being able to create such an alternative. Wouldn't it be nice if people who actually understand various parts of this can talk and work together? That doesn't become more likely when every discussion is filled with people who only read others' comments enough to find where to insert their own half-baked opinions or insults.
panarky 9y ago
"The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." "This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption." "Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are hit nonlinearly relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance." -- Julian Assange http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
- crpatino 9y ago
  I do not think unjust systems induce any more opponents than just ones. The history of the World would be much different if the onew who thrived were peoples that minded their own business and let their neighbours alone. But agreed on the broader subject of "secrecy tax".
- ambicapter 9y ago
  Yeah I feel like secretive and unjust are two completely different things, and Julian Assange conflating the two doesn't reflect well on his already questionable character.
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    Systems that are just do not generally require secrecy to the degree that unjust systems do, precisely due to the fact that when publicized, people will generally agree with just processes.
    - lukevdp 9y ago
      Except that even a just system has parts that can be taken out of context, and twisted to paint a narrative that it is not just.

paws 9y ago

You may find it additionally ironic that about a month before the Boz memo, it was reported[1] that Zuck bought 4 houses located around his own for $30 million. Privacy is looking pretty alive in that neighborhood. [1] http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/ http://time.com/money/4346766/mark-zuckerberg-houses/

thaumaturgy 9y ago
Zuckerberg built a 6 foot wall around his 700-acre estate in Hawaii because he values his own privacy that much: http://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-wall-hawaii-protest-549068 http://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-wall-hawaii...
- mistermann 9y ago
  If it wasn't for the unearned and unnassailable value of the network effect Facebook benefits from, this disgusting behavior (from Zuck and his minions) would be enough to drive everyone to a new platform.

notacoward 9y ago

> You can't simultaneously hold the opinion that there's no harm in sharing information, while also holding the opinion that there is such thing as a "leak. Likewise, you can't simultaneously hold the opinion that users should have control over where their content is seen, and that it's OK to publish and comment on an internal post. In a less spiteful world, some of the employees' reactions might have been taken as evidence that they do understand and care about issues of privacy or containment. Maybe that would lead to more collaboration on solutions, which is necessary because there are actually some tricky tradeoffs here. But that doesn't give the same dopamine hit as cutting down the tall poppies, right?

avoidit 9y ago
>> Likewise, you can't simultaneously hold the opinion that users should have control over where their content is seen, and that it's OK to publish and comment on an internal post. This argument is illogical, because Facebook forces everyone to sign its ToS to use its services, while nobody forces a Facebook employee to leak internal stuff. Said another way, whether or not I wish to have control over my FB data, FB coerces me to agree that it can do whatever it wants with my data. Its not exactly opt-in, is it? Its far worse, of course, if you consider shadow profiles, because it is even coercing people who didn't even explicitly sign up to the ToS. Unless the leak happened via some kind of coercion (which doesn't seem to be the case), your comment is incorrect. >> In a less spiteful world, some of the employees' reactions might have been taken as evidence that they do understand and care about issues of privacy or containment. What? You mean you care about something, but you just won't do something about it, nor openly tell anyone why you wouldn't do something about it, or even talk about it before the issue blows up? Yep, totally convincing. >> Maybe that would lead to more collaboration on solutions, Why do people need to "collaborate" on solutions? What do they get from it? Is Facebook going to pay people a share of the profits? If Facebook is a corporate entity which serves its self-interest against people's self-interest (which they have clearly been doing for a long time), what kind of idiot would suggest the people whose self-interest has been affected should now "come to the table" so "we can all work something out"? >> which is necessary because there are actually some tricky tradeoffs here. The only tricky tradeoff here is: should Mark Zuckerberg be the only one who should go to jail, or should the entire company be rounded up? It is quite tricky, I do agree. >> But that doesn't give the same dopamine hit as cutting down the tall poppies, right? I don't know about tall poppies, but "culling" the "weeds" is the only way to have a healthy garden.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I think we all understand this scenario can lead us to highly charged emotions. I believe you comment would have been better without name-calling and leap to jail time.
- notacoward 9y ago
  > Its not exactly opt-in, is it? You're free not to use it. If that opt-in isn't enough, exactly how many levels do you want? If you do choose to use a free service, whether it's Facebook or a public library, you have to consider how it's paid for. Actively using something and also actively undermining its means of support ... well, I'll just leave that thought there. > You mean you care about something, but you just won't do something about it You seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what individual employees can do at a 30K-person company, or about anyone taking the right action without deliberating first. > Why do people need to "collaborate" on solutions? What do they get from it? Ummm ... the solutions, which are not only applicable to Facebook? This is a general problem faced by many companies. The solutions could also be useful to the people who blather about creating a distributed alternative to Facebook. I've been a member of the decentralization and distributed-system community for far longer than Facebook or Y Combinator have existed. I also know something about the scale and connectedness of the data at Facebook. We're multiple basic innovations away from being able to create such an alternative. Wouldn't it be nice if people who actually understand various parts of this can talk and work together? That doesn't become more likely when every discussion is filled with people who only read others' comments enough to find where to insert their own half-baked opinions or insults.

panarky 9y ago

"The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie." "This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption." "Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are hit nonlinearly relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance." -- Julian Assange http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

crpatino 9y ago
I do not think unjust systems induce any more opponents than just ones. The history of the World would be much different if the onew who thrived were peoples that minded their own business and let their neighbours alone. But agreed on the broader subject of "secrecy tax".
ambicapter 9y ago
Yeah I feel like secretive and unjust are two completely different things, and Julian Assange conflating the two doesn't reflect well on his already questionable character.
- jaggederest 9y ago
  Systems that are just do not generally require secrecy to the degree that unjust systems do, precisely due to the fact that when publicized, people will generally agree with just processes.
  - lukevdp 9y ago
    Except that even a just system has parts that can be taken out of context, and twisted to paint a narrative that it is not just.