4 ms·

>> 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

>> 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.
- avoidit 9y ago
  >> If that opt-in isn't enough, exactly how many levels do you want? Since you can't seem to count to 2, how about: 1. You let us share your data with others in return for free service 2. You don't let us share your date in return for paid service >> If you do choose to use a free service, whether it's Facebook or a public library Well, a public library is tax funded and people outside the library employees have a big say in its inner workings. So you can't get your comparisons correct either. >> Actively using something and also actively undermining its means of support ... well, I'll just leave that thought there. Perhaps you should complete the thought, because I don't actively use the something >> 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. Really, as opposed to your very realistic expectations that everyone should just trust FB employees would have "done the right thing" had they not been caught red-handed? Oh right, because FB knows better what is best for everyone else. >>Wouldn't it be nice if people who actually understand various parts of this can talk and work together? This is truly bizarre. So if FB rolls over and dies tomorrow, does it mean innovation will come to a complete halt? Let us say you think, "oh, but it might take much longer". Does that automatically adversely affect people more than the damages that can be caused to society via rampant data collection? How can you be so sure? Oh wait, because you must be smarter than everyone else, as you got through the interview. And finally, it is interesting all the things that you selectively left unsaid (exactly like other FB employees have been doing all the while). - you don't have the courage (what an ironic handle) to discuss shadow profiles - you never actually addressed the fact that no one from outside coerced the leak, which made your first comment more rhetorical than substantial - you cleverly twisted the "collaboration" to be amongst FB employees when clearly the line following tells that you actually meant collaboration between FB employees and its users (dopamine hit for whom, that is? so you are now assuming others cannot read either?)

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.

avoidit 9y ago
>> If that opt-in isn't enough, exactly how many levels do you want? Since you can't seem to count to 2, how about: 1. You let us share your data with others in return for free service 2. You don't let us share your date in return for paid service >> If you do choose to use a free service, whether it's Facebook or a public library Well, a public library is tax funded and people outside the library employees have a big say in its inner workings. So you can't get your comparisons correct either. >> Actively using something and also actively undermining its means of support ... well, I'll just leave that thought there. Perhaps you should complete the thought, because I don't actively use the something >> 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. Really, as opposed to your very realistic expectations that everyone should just trust FB employees would have "done the right thing" had they not been caught red-handed? Oh right, because FB knows better what is best for everyone else. >>Wouldn't it be nice if people who actually understand various parts of this can talk and work together? This is truly bizarre. So if FB rolls over and dies tomorrow, does it mean innovation will come to a complete halt? Let us say you think, "oh, but it might take much longer". Does that automatically adversely affect people more than the damages that can be caused to society via rampant data collection? How can you be so sure? Oh wait, because you must be smarter than everyone else, as you got through the interview. And finally, it is interesting all the things that you selectively left unsaid (exactly like other FB employees have been doing all the while). - you don't have the courage (what an ironic handle) to discuss shadow profiles - you never actually addressed the fact that no one from outside coerced the leak, which made your first comment more rhetorical than substantial - you cleverly twisted the "collaboration" to be amongst FB employees when clearly the line following tells that you actually meant collaboration between FB employees and its users (dopamine hit for whom, that is? so you are now assuming others cannot read either?)