6 ms·

As much as I loathe too I have to defend Facebook. Not to say the data collection practices are not egregious ,let's not forget that these are industry-wide pr

As much as I loathe too I have to defend Facebook. Not to say the data collection practices are not egregious ,let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. Experian, anyone? It's almost as if we've collectively forgotten the data breaches of the last 12 months and how exposed American and EU citizens are now to fraud because of lax security practices by credit scoring companies. I guess the difference is that Facebook is actively sharing this data and Experian was hacked, because their breach was the action of an external agent, they are less culpable. From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Facebook doesn't care about users, but politicians who have the power to change this care even less.

itronitron 9y ago
Most politicians care more about people than Facebook does, if for no other reason that they need to be reelected.
agumonkey 9y ago
something about society too, how much users really care ? people may complain, rant, scream, walk, strike .. but do they really want privacy ? and do they know how to define it ? at what cost (going off facebook/web ? paying for guarantees?, doing paper work to ensure political class write these down as laws ?)
briandear 9y ago
I would say “curating” of political ideas is a big issue. See Ted Cruz’s questioning of Zuckerberg as an example. It’s not just data but how Facebook has such a dominant role in steering political discourse. There are more issues at play than simple data hygiene.
tabeth 9y ago
What I'm really curious about is the psychology of people that makes them engage in this whataboutism that's present in almost every post about Facebook and this data issue. By the way, both Equifax (American based) and Experian (Irish) are subject to way more regulation than Facebook, which is currently none AFAIK. P.S. Though Experian had a minor data breach in 2015 you're most likely referring to the far larger (order magnitude higher) Equifax breach.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  Instead of thinking about the inner factors to whataboutism, I'd look at what factors predict the tactic's success for more insight into why that technique is effective. What enables the tactical fruitfulness of pointing a finger the other way?
- msravi 9y ago
  I might be able to satisfy your curiosity. People indulge in whataboutism for the fairly straightforward reason that they dislike hypocrisy and have a sense of fairness and would like everyone to be held to the same standards.
  - musage 9y ago
    Not when they're using imaginary others as an excuse to not hold it to that standard themselves. When A is criticized, it's "what about B?", and the other way around. The real question is, what about them? A is criticized, for reasons X, and instead of having a position on that, they talk about some imaginary other monolith that doesn't criticize B when B wasn't even mentioned until they brought it up. So to say that has somehow to do with a heightened intellectual honesty, is like saying they're shitting on the floor to make it cleaner. Maybe in their mind that's what they think they're doing.
- Izkata 9y ago
  I know I get accused of it when I'm honestly trying to understand why people are okay with one instance, but not another. Did they just not know about the it? Am I missing some context? Is it okay with them if it's "their side"? Something else? It's really frustrating and largely makes me think they don't want to admit to themselves that they are being biased for one reason or another.
quickcorrection 9y ago
Equifax
goalieca 9y ago
> Let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. One of the themes of the hearing was that these industry wide practices have gone on too long without governmental oversight.
cubano 9y ago
> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Bingo we have a winner. That's exactly what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole the most coveted position from them as an outsider. Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.
- bnolsen 9y ago
  Pretty funny that in the preceding years they gave for free the same data to the Obama administration. Then they sell it for the Trump campaign and all hell breaks loose. Maybe facebook should have given that away for free too? It's pretty obvious there's a huge double standard going on here that's totally being ignored. I find it funny at how willing the left is to self destruct without thinking.
  - runamok 9y ago
    Who gave the data (what data?) for free? Facebook? Cambridge Analytical? Iiuc the whole brouhaha comes from 2 facts. 1. An old app (some survey app) sold it's data against fb's terms of services to an outside group. 2. Fb's access rights used to Grant access to the info not only of the user of the app but also that user's friends and thus ballooned from 700k users to 50+ million. Now as far as allowing political campaigns to target people for all kinds of criteria I am sure that is still happening and how all advertising works...
- danShumway 9y ago
  I'm tempted to agree. I despise Trump and I despise the dishonest, manipulative way he ran his campaign, but some of the recent coverage smacks to me of people just coming up with more excuses to get around the fact that a lot of people voted for him. We have a habit of being kind of condescending towards rural voters, and the trend towards, 'you didn't have any agency, you were just manipulated into this' is uncomfortable to me.
mtgx 9y ago
> let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. Actually, we're already seeing some real action from Congress. The author of COPPA introduced the CONSENT Act, which seems to bring parts of GDPR to the US. https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONSENT%20Act%20text.pdf https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONSENT%20Act%20... The "catch" is that it only applies to "edge providers" (online services), but not ISPs, which I think is FINE. That's a battle for another day. After all, remember how Google helped in the openness or copyright fights against the ISPs and content providers in the early days (which of course directly helped Google to grow even more as a company)? And now we're stuck with tech companies becoming dangerous monopolies, too. My point is that I don't mind ISPs actually supporting legislation like this, as long as the legislation makes sense against that group of companies. Once Democrats get back in power, I think we'll have a good chance to pass a net neutrality law as well as a broadband/wireless privacy act, too.
Neil44 9y ago
The senators only have 5 minutes each so all there is time for is a bit of grandstanding. Anything you try and go deeper on Zuck will just kill time for 5 minutes.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Actually, I think that a lot of it is pro-Trump misdirection. The focus on Facebook in the media (which even though, yes, it is about something that ultimately served Trump, rarely mentions Trump, or the aspects, like the CA-Russia connections, that connect the affair to other Trump scandals) is a distraction from the Trump Administration scandals, especially as the tone and focus of the response is concerns about the role of and potential need to regulsate the “big tech companies”. If this was about outrage at Trump, Steve Bannon would be on the Congressional hot seat, not Mark Zuckerberg.
common_ 9y ago
Experian et al do not have a two-way channel they can use to run psychological experiments based on your usage data and communications with others. Facebook can, and does. These hearings are just the tip of the iceberg. You're like the guy saying Bitcoin has hit its peak at $100.

itronitron 9y ago

Most politicians care more about people than Facebook does, if for no other reason that they need to be reelected.

agumonkey 9y ago

something about society too, how much users really care ? people may complain, rant, scream, walk, strike .. but do they really want privacy ? and do they know how to define it ? at what cost (going off facebook/web ? paying for guarantees?, doing paper work to ensure political class write these down as laws ?)

briandear 9y ago

I would say “curating” of political ideas is a big issue. See Ted Cruz’s questioning of Zuckerberg as an example. It’s not just data but how Facebook has such a dominant role in steering political discourse. There are more issues at play than simple data hygiene.

tabeth 9y ago

What I'm really curious about is the psychology of people that makes them engage in this whataboutism that's present in almost every post about Facebook and this data issue. By the way, both Equifax (American based) and Experian (Irish) are subject to way more regulation than Facebook, which is currently none AFAIK. P.S. Though Experian had a minor data breach in 2015 you're most likely referring to the far larger (order magnitude higher) Equifax breach.

threatofrain 9y ago
Instead of thinking about the inner factors to whataboutism, I'd look at what factors predict the tactic's success for more insight into why that technique is effective. What enables the tactical fruitfulness of pointing a finger the other way?
msravi 9y ago
I might be able to satisfy your curiosity. People indulge in whataboutism for the fairly straightforward reason that they dislike hypocrisy and have a sense of fairness and would like everyone to be held to the same standards.
- musage 9y ago
  Not when they're using imaginary others as an excuse to not hold it to that standard themselves. When A is criticized, it's "what about B?", and the other way around. The real question is, what about them? A is criticized, for reasons X, and instead of having a position on that, they talk about some imaginary other monolith that doesn't criticize B when B wasn't even mentioned until they brought it up. So to say that has somehow to do with a heightened intellectual honesty, is like saying they're shitting on the floor to make it cleaner. Maybe in their mind that's what they think they're doing.
Izkata 9y ago
I know I get accused of it when I'm honestly trying to understand why people are okay with one instance, but not another. Did they just not know about the it? Am I missing some context? Is it okay with them if it's "their side"? Something else? It's really frustrating and largely makes me think they don't want to admit to themselves that they are being biased for one reason or another.

quickcorrection 9y ago

Equifax

goalieca 9y ago

> Let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. One of the themes of the hearing was that these industry wide practices have gone on too long without governmental oversight.

cubano 9y ago

> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Bingo we have a winner. That's exactly what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole the most coveted position from them as an outsider. Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.

bnolsen 9y ago
Pretty funny that in the preceding years they gave for free the same data to the Obama administration. Then they sell it for the Trump campaign and all hell breaks loose. Maybe facebook should have given that away for free too? It's pretty obvious there's a huge double standard going on here that's totally being ignored. I find it funny at how willing the left is to self destruct without thinking.
- runamok 9y ago
  Who gave the data (what data?) for free? Facebook? Cambridge Analytical? Iiuc the whole brouhaha comes from 2 facts. 1. An old app (some survey app) sold it's data against fb's terms of services to an outside group. 2. Fb's access rights used to Grant access to the info not only of the user of the app but also that user's friends and thus ballooned from 700k users to 50+ million. Now as far as allowing political campaigns to target people for all kinds of criteria I am sure that is still happening and how all advertising works...
danShumway 9y ago
I'm tempted to agree. I despise Trump and I despise the dishonest, manipulative way he ran his campaign, but some of the recent coverage smacks to me of people just coming up with more excuses to get around the fact that a lot of people voted for him. We have a habit of being kind of condescending towards rural voters, and the trend towards, 'you didn't have any agency, you were just manipulated into this' is uncomfortable to me.

mtgx 9y ago

> let's not forget that these are industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting users than it is political grand standing. Actually, we're already seeing some real action from Congress. The author of COPPA introduced the CONSENT Act, which seems to bring parts of GDPR to the US. https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONSENT%20Act%20text.pdf https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CONSENT%20Act%20... The "catch" is that it only applies to "edge providers" (online services), but not ISPs, which I think is FINE. That's a battle for another day. After all, remember how Google helped in the openness or copyright fights against the ISPs and content providers in the early days (which of course directly helped Google to grow even more as a company)? And now we're stuck with tech companies becoming dangerous monopolies, too. My point is that I don't mind ISPs actually supporting legislation like this, as long as the legislation makes sense against that group of companies. Once Democrats get back in power, I think we'll have a good chance to pass a net neutrality law as well as a broadband/wireless privacy act, too.

Neil44 9y ago

The senators only have 5 minutes each so all there is time for is a bit of grandstanding. Anything you try and go deeper on Zuck will just kill time for 5 minutes.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook. Actually, I think that a lot of it is pro-Trump misdirection. The focus on Facebook in the media (which even though, yes, it is about something that ultimately served Trump, rarely mentions Trump, or the aspects, like the CA-Russia connections, that connect the affair to other Trump scandals) is a distraction from the Trump Administration scandals, especially as the tone and focus of the response is concerns about the role of and potential need to regulsate the “big tech companies”. If this was about outrage at Trump, Steve Bannon would be on the Congressional hot seat, not Mark Zuckerberg.

common_ 9y ago

Experian et al do not have a two-way channel they can use to run psychological experiments based on your usage data and communications with others. Facebook can, and does. These hearings are just the tip of the iceberg. You're like the guy saying Bitcoin has hit its peak at $100.