8 ms·

Seems weak, I hope some of the representatives have read Tim Wu. For example when Zuck says: >My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting

Seems weak, I hope some of the representatives have read Tim Wu. For example when Zuck says: >My top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world closer together. Advertisers and developers will never take priority over that as long as I’m running Facebook. This is either misleading or a lie. Facebook is a corporation, what Zuckerberg wants to do as an individual isn't even relevant, what's relevant is what the corporation "wants" to do to increase profit. So far that has been pursuing connecting people and building communities and then taking that information and selling it to developers and advertisers. The phrasing places community and monetization in competition but Facebook's model isn't of competition between those it's model is a monetization of community. So the testimony never speaks to the fundamental problem of having advertisers as any level of priority here. Also to say that Cambridge Analytica abused the system sidesteps the issue of whether it was in Facebook's interest to allow this data to be collected and then misused. Cambridge Analytica purchased data which made Facebook the most attractive advertising platform for them because of the targeting they could do. That is good for Facebook's bottom line. They also don't address the total amount of information that may be out there, floating through advertisers outside of Facebook's control right now. Despite new restrictions how much about me is already out there? That's what I want to know. Overall, it's basically what I expected but I really hope there are a few representatives who can set aside the specifics of this one incident and attack the wider notion of Facebook's purpose.

jaibot 9y ago
> Facebook is a corporation, what Zuckerberg wants to do as an individual isn't even relevant Zuck is a majority shareholder, so what he wants to do as an individual can actually be fairly significant here.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Fair. Perhaps the most salient criticism is that Zuckerberg's top priority is connecting people because his company is designed to use those connections in order to sell lots of advertising.
  - methodover 9y ago
    Advertising is the best way to pay for the servers, lawyers, developers, office space, and everything else FB needs, while keeping the cost for users low. I believe they are investigating options for letting you pay for FB to turn off advertisements, however. In the end, it's hard to know for sure what Mark's true motivations are, just as it is for anyone else. The only person who knows Mark's true intentions is Mark. That said, I personally believe him. When I listen to him talk about what he wants to do with Facebook, it seems obvious to me that he has good intentions at heart. He's about my age, and when I was young the internet let me communicate with people from different areas of the world, different backgrounds, and helped me expand my own understanding of humanity. The internet made me a better person -- a more tolerant, more thoughtful, less prejudiced person. I hoped that the internet could facilitate the same personal growth in the rest of humanity, too. By drawing people together from the disparate corners of the world online, we could become a more tolerant, more understanding species. Mark has said similar things. Unfortunately, things haven't quite worked out as he, or I, hoped, it seems. =(
    - rock_hard 9y ago
      about same age too and you express well how I feel about the situation. We are not done here though, the fight to use the internet to connect the world continues!
734786710934 9y ago
Facebook doesn't sell data, it sells ads. It's in Facebook's interest to prevent advertisers and developers from collecting and misusing data so they buy more ads.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Yes but it's in facebook's interest to have the best, most accurately targeted advertising platform. In this case the facebook data CA obtained wedded it to facebook's advertising platform and that's what is in facebook's interest. FB would love to release tons of data to all advertisers because then those advertisers would advertise on facebook. The pressure against this release is negative public perception. So fb's profit motive incentivizes it to walk a tightrope with our data in hand. That's the core problem.
  - bobdole1234 9y ago
    Releasing that information means those advertisers no longer need Facebook to do the ad targeting. They can then use other exchanges to do targeting without paying Facebook anything. It is in Facebooks interests to guard that information carefully.
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      Yeah, and sharing it with the political partiy it thinks deserves to win the next election; even if it otherwise guards it carefully. There's a reason why we have the separation between the head of state, the Church, Congress and the federal courts.
carusooneliner 9y ago
@frgtpsswrdlame could you elaborate how Tim Wu is relevant here? I'm asking from a self-education perspective.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  He's done a mini media blitz, which you can see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-repl... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously-failed-to-keep-privacy-promises-ex-ftc-adviser-says https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-change-but-facebook-has-failed-to-follow-through-in-the-past https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-c... Also there's this older piece from him here: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-pay-all-of-us https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-... Basically Wu has a much more radical critique of facebook which is probably best explained in his own words (from the npr piece): >I think the problem lies here. It's actually a very fundamental one, which is Facebook is always in the position of serving two masters. If its actual purpose was just trying to connect friends and family, and it didn't have a secondary motive of trying to also prove to another set of people that it could gather as much data as possible and make it possible to manipulate or influence or persuade people, then it wouldn't be a problem. For example, if they were a nonprofit, it wouldn't be a problem. >I think there's a sort of intrinsic problem with having for-profit entities with this business model in this position of so much public trust because they're always at the edge because their profitability depends on it.
paulie_a 9y ago
Fuck their profits. Corporations can and are socially responsible at the expense of a few extra dollars.
methodover 9y ago
> selling it to developers FB doesn't sell access to their API. Many other businesses sell access to their API. FB doesn't. > Also to say that Cambridge Analytica abused the system sidesteps the issue of whether it was in Facebook's interest to allow this data to be collected and then misused. It absolutely wasn't in FB's interest as this media firestorm indicates. Also, CA purchased data illegitimately from someone other than FB. FB did not sell your data to CA or anyone else. (FB does sell advertisements, and those ads can be targeted to specific types of users.) > Despite new restrictions how much about me is already out there? That's what I want to know. FB is coming out soon with a feature that will let you see if CA had access to your profile.
- jonbarker 9y ago
  When you buy ads programmatically, and define those purchases with parameters instead of through a GUI, aren't you arguably buying access to an API?

jaibot 9y ago

> Facebook is a corporation, what Zuckerberg wants to do as an individual isn't even relevant Zuck is a majority shareholder, so what he wants to do as an individual can actually be fairly significant here.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Fair. Perhaps the most salient criticism is that Zuckerberg's top priority is connecting people because his company is designed to use those connections in order to sell lots of advertising.
- methodover 9y ago
  Advertising is the best way to pay for the servers, lawyers, developers, office space, and everything else FB needs, while keeping the cost for users low. I believe they are investigating options for letting you pay for FB to turn off advertisements, however. In the end, it's hard to know for sure what Mark's true motivations are, just as it is for anyone else. The only person who knows Mark's true intentions is Mark. That said, I personally believe him. When I listen to him talk about what he wants to do with Facebook, it seems obvious to me that he has good intentions at heart. He's about my age, and when I was young the internet let me communicate with people from different areas of the world, different backgrounds, and helped me expand my own understanding of humanity. The internet made me a better person -- a more tolerant, more thoughtful, less prejudiced person. I hoped that the internet could facilitate the same personal growth in the rest of humanity, too. By drawing people together from the disparate corners of the world online, we could become a more tolerant, more understanding species. Mark has said similar things. Unfortunately, things haven't quite worked out as he, or I, hoped, it seems. =(
  - rock_hard 9y ago
    about same age too and you express well how I feel about the situation. We are not done here though, the fight to use the internet to connect the world continues!

734786710934 9y ago

Facebook doesn't sell data, it sells ads. It's in Facebook's interest to prevent advertisers and developers from collecting and misusing data so they buy more ads.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Yes but it's in facebook's interest to have the best, most accurately targeted advertising platform. In this case the facebook data CA obtained wedded it to facebook's advertising platform and that's what is in facebook's interest. FB would love to release tons of data to all advertisers because then those advertisers would advertise on facebook. The pressure against this release is negative public perception. So fb's profit motive incentivizes it to walk a tightrope with our data in hand. That's the core problem.
- bobdole1234 9y ago
  Releasing that information means those advertisers no longer need Facebook to do the ad targeting. They can then use other exchanges to do targeting without paying Facebook anything. It is in Facebooks interests to guard that information carefully.
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    Yeah, and sharing it with the political partiy it thinks deserves to win the next election; even if it otherwise guards it carefully. There's a reason why we have the separation between the head of state, the Church, Congress and the federal courts.

carusooneliner 9y ago

@frgtpsswrdlame could you elaborate how Tim Wu is relevant here? I'm asking from a self-education perspective.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
He's done a mini media blitz, which you can see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-repl... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously-failed-to-keep-privacy-promises-ex-ftc-adviser-says https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-change-but-facebook-has-failed-to-follow-through-in-the-past https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-c... Also there's this older piece from him here: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-pay-all-of-us https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-... Basically Wu has a much more radical critique of facebook which is probably best explained in his own words (from the npr piece): >I think the problem lies here. It's actually a very fundamental one, which is Facebook is always in the position of serving two masters. If its actual purpose was just trying to connect friends and family, and it didn't have a secondary motive of trying to also prove to another set of people that it could gather as much data as possible and make it possible to manipulate or influence or persuade people, then it wouldn't be a problem. For example, if they were a nonprofit, it wouldn't be a problem. >I think there's a sort of intrinsic problem with having for-profit entities with this business model in this position of so much public trust because they're always at the edge because their profitability depends on it.

paulie_a 9y ago

Fuck their profits. Corporations can and are socially responsible at the expense of a few extra dollars.

methodover 9y ago

> selling it to developers FB doesn't sell access to their API. Many other businesses sell access to their API. FB doesn't. > Also to say that Cambridge Analytica abused the system sidesteps the issue of whether it was in Facebook's interest to allow this data to be collected and then misused. It absolutely wasn't in FB's interest as this media firestorm indicates. Also, CA purchased data illegitimately from someone other than FB. FB did not sell your data to CA or anyone else. (FB does sell advertisements, and those ads can be targeted to specific types of users.) > Despite new restrictions how much about me is already out there? That's what I want to know. FB is coming out soon with a feature that will let you see if CA had access to your profile.

jonbarker 9y ago
When you buy ads programmatically, and define those purchases with parameters instead of through a GUI, aren't you arguably buying access to an API?