3 ms·

> With Cambridge Analytica, a core component of Facebook's advertising business model is threatened. Hence the inaction. If they already disabled the API that

> With Cambridge Analytica, a core component of Facebook's advertising business model is threatened. Hence the inaction. If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the right word?

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Transparency at this moment would demand a complete list of all of the apps that could have had access to your data. That reveal hasn't happened.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the right word? You don't find yourself testifying to the Congress because of a single technical loophole. This happens when a series of failures occur and fail to be remedied. In some cases they may not even be seen, internally, as failures [1][2]. Zuckerberg is there to tell the Congress "you can trust me." The Congress wants him to say that publicly to gauge if there's political will, amongst voters, to go after Facebook. Treating this as a narrow reaction to limited failures as opposed to a general questioning of the viability of an internationally-scoped ad-driven politically-volatile social network is what I expect Zuckerberg to do, and why I expect him to fall down. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-leaks-boz-andrew-bosworth https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-le... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/facebook-android-data-collection/#5a25f38325db https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/faceboo...
FussyZeus 9y ago
> If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the right word? If nothing else, it's a classic case of closing the barn doors after the horses are long gone. And Facebook's barn was built with every wall as an open door, and they've been slowly locking them up as people get outraged enough about things to demand it. But there are still tons of open doors.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

Transparency at this moment would demand a complete list of all of the apps that could have had access to your data. That reveal hasn't happened.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the right word? You don't find yourself testifying to the Congress because of a single technical loophole. This happens when a series of failures occur and fail to be remedied. In some cases they may not even be seen, internally, as failures [1][2]. Zuckerberg is there to tell the Congress "you can trust me." The Congress wants him to say that publicly to gauge if there's political will, amongst voters, to go after Facebook. Treating this as a narrow reaction to limited failures as opposed to a general questioning of the viability of an internationally-scoped ad-driven politically-volatile social network is what I expect Zuckerberg to do, and why I expect him to fall down. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-leaks-boz-andrew-bosworth https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17179100/facebook-memo-le... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/facebook-android-data-collection/#5a25f38325db https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/03/25/faceboo...

FussyZeus 9y ago

> If they already disabled the API that CA was using, is "inaction" really the right word? If nothing else, it's a classic case of closing the barn doors after the horses are long gone. And Facebook's barn was built with every wall as an open door, and they've been slowly locking them up as people get outraged enough about things to demand it. But there are still tons of open doors.