3 ms·

I would trust Zuckerberg to understand better if something is easier or harder to implement at Facebook. Also considering that they make money from data, it mig

I would trust Zuckerberg to understand better if something is easier or harder to implement at Facebook. Also considering that they make money from data, it might be very expensive to throw away everybody's data.

oculusthrift 9y ago
no. he knows it’s harder. but it’s worth it for him to sell your data and abuse his users.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  It's greed. Plus--he knows his idiot (I believe he used this word?) members really don't care, as long as they get likes, and can leer at fishmouth posers. I guarantee there's a bunch of people coding a new social site right now--with ethics in mind--hopefully? I hope one succeeds, and FB is a footnote in history.
mikenew 9y ago
Your second point does not support your first.
- MR4D 9y ago
  Sure it does. Data is an asset from which they derive revenue. Implementation of rules is just a cost. Throwing away a huge asset would also reduce revenue. Am I missing something?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - systoll 9y ago
    You’re missing the distinction between easy and profitable. Going back to the top of the thread, the idea was that this is a decision that looks bad in a moment where everyone’s looking at Facebook. If extending the behaviour worldwide were a difficult engineering feat, that’d provide a simple outward justification for Facebook to not bother. But in reality, It’s more difficult to keep the two systems around. Taking that path implies that Facebook actively benefits from breaking the EU law, and justifying it outwardly in the current climate means establishing how the EU law actively harms Facebook’s users... while not admitting that they violate user’s privacy, and profit from doing so. [And as others have suggested... even if it’s the right move to implement things this way — it makes ~0 sense to draw attention to it.]

3 ms·

I would trust Zuckerberg to understand better if something is easier or harder to implement at Facebook. Also considering that they make money from data, it mig

by dingo_bat 9y ago

oculusthrift 9y ago
no. he knows it’s harder. but it’s worth it for him to sell your data and abuse his users.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  It's greed. Plus--he knows his idiot (I believe he used this word?) members really don't care, as long as they get likes, and can leer at fishmouth posers. I guarantee there's a bunch of people coding a new social site right now--with ethics in mind--hopefully? I hope one succeeds, and FB is a footnote in history.
mikenew 9y ago
Your second point does not support your first.
- MR4D 9y ago
  Sure it does. Data is an asset from which they derive revenue. Implementation of rules is just a cost. Throwing away a huge asset would also reduce revenue. Am I missing something?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - systoll 9y ago
    You’re missing the distinction between easy and profitable. Going back to the top of the thread, the idea was that this is a decision that looks bad in a moment where everyone’s looking at Facebook. If extending the behaviour worldwide were a difficult engineering feat, that’d provide a simple outward justification for Facebook to not bother. But in reality, It’s more difficult to keep the two systems around. Taking that path implies that Facebook actively benefits from breaking the EU law, and justifying it outwardly in the current climate means establishing how the EU law actively harms Facebook’s users... while not admitting that they violate user’s privacy, and profit from doing so. [And as others have suggested... even if it’s the right move to implement things this way — it makes ~0 sense to draw attention to it.]