8 ms·

The Facebook Current

103 points by mercutio2 9y ago

panoply 9y ago
Mark Zuckerberg cannot handle any form of criticism and it's just utterly weak. He constantly evaded questions and failed to give worthy answers. It was quite the spectacle. All Mark Zuckerberg really needs is a swift punch in jaw. Nonetheless, I've boycotted Facebook and the masses will follow in due time.
oliviabishop27 9y ago
Zuckerberg says he's making a lot of changes at Facebook and trying to make it better for everyone. The real question is are they? With tremendous power that Facebook has they can really topple governments or make new governments. Their power needs to be kept in check.
- codegladiator 9y ago
  One Man’s Tool Is Another Man’s Weapon - Bane
  - mfringel 9y ago
    But Killing Someone With A Lawn Chair Is Still Non-Intuitive. -mfringel
r00fus 9y ago
What really needs to happen is GDPR here in the US. To force the Facebooks and Googles of the world to pay for the data breach liabilities (perhaps insurance could cover a breach - it would at least force them to price it). You want to profit off my data (esp. through shadow profiles)? I should have a right as to whether you should and how. This would inherently limit the utility of such breaches like CA and whatever might happen with your Google data.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Why should you "own" data that happens to be about you? If someone writes on a piece of paper that they saw you on a street at some time, should the paper now be your property? Going further, if we had the technology to selectively erase memories, do you think someone should have the right to have other people's memories erased pertaining to them? I just can't get behind this premise at all. Nothing is being taken from you when Facebook makes a shadow profile and you don't have any copyright or other intellectual property rights over your name, the fact that you went to x high school, the fact that you lived in town y, etc.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    So you are ok with me having a picture of your children naked on my CDN ? Or you having sex with your wife ? I shadowed it by using the camera on your phone, you gave permissions without reading.
    - rrrazdan 9y ago
      Appeal to Extremes? In a society where we interact with other people we are okay with some information about us being 'out there'. I am okay with you knowing my school, but not that I am uncircumcised. Edit: Not that I am with OP on shadow profiles or what Facebook is doing. I think it is okay to use people's data for advertisements and other monetary benefit but you should tell that clearly to people and it should be a big opt-in decision point with lots of information provided. I just wanted to point out that your argument is a fallacious argument.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        Yes but where do you draw the line ? Fb would cross mine, and it's why i never had an account.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    > Nothing is being taken from you when Facebook makes a shadow profile Something is clearly being taken. The fact that it's being assembled without my consent is disturbing, the fact that FB has repeatedly been reckless with securing that data is even more worrisome. Your privacy (and possibly safety) is being taken. If a burglar can use exfiltrated FB data to know when I'm vacationing, it's information that makes me less secure. If insurance companies think I'm at a higher risk for expensive treatments, I may be denied or forced to pay a higher premium (perhaps without knowing why).
alva 9y ago
My biggest frustration is some of the questions came close to forcing some real answers, the biggest being data deletion. Zuckerberg was always extremely careful when it came to questions of account deletion. One question asked "when a user deletes their account do you erase the data", Zuckerberg visibly tripped up and referred back to "data is deleted". There is quite a bit of discussion online on whether FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed.
- nemothekid 9y ago
  >There is quite a bit of discussion online on whether FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed. This shouldn't be a discussion. I can't think of a single non-toy database that actually deletes data when you press DELETE. All the LSM databases (pretty much anything using Facebook's RocksDB) doesn't actually remove data until a compaction event - and MySql/Postgres don't actually delete data until you a VACUUM occurs. (then there's whole minefield of did the OS actually remove the data, or did the filesystem just mark the affected area as deleted, but didn't scrub the bits). Then theres the backups - FB may have a ton of backups in cold storage that may have your data that wasn't removed. The conversation about "FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed." is unfruitful. The answer is "no" for almost every company on the planet, not just FB.
  - anarazel 9y ago
    > Postgres don't actually delete data until you a VACUUM occurs. FWIW, a large portion of cleanup happens on access. If the entire page will not be accessed until the next VACUUM that doesn't change anything, but in OLTP workloads that space will often be reclaimed much earlier. Doesn't change anything about your larger point though.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    There is obviously a certain leeway in time allowed for a deletion request to actually be fulfilled. But other than that: if technology gets in the way what people and the law demand, it's technology that needs to change, not people.
jonbarker 9y ago
Because of unnatural time constraints nobody was able to press on his defense of "you own your data because we made a download your data button" which is a dramatic oversimplification of how the adtech ecosystem actually works. In addition, I feel that the format and time constraints were carefully set up to avoid this more important discussion, because Congress needs FB, and FB needs Congress.
- Pigo 9y ago
  Do they need each other because they hope to utilize them for re-elections, or is it simply because they have so much money and Congress wants some too?
  - jonbarker 9y ago
    More of the former but probably a little bit of both.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
One of the most interesting proposals to me was the concept of an information fiduciary: SCHATZ: In the time I have left, I want to — I want to propose something to you and take it for the record. I read an interesting article this week by Professor Jack Balkin at Yale that proposes a concept of an information fiduciary. People think of fiduciaries as responsible primarily in the economic sense, but this is really about a trust relationship like doctors and lawyers, tech companies should hold in trust our personal data. Are you open to the idea of an information fiduciary and shrine and statute? ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I think it's certainly an interesting idea, and Jack is very thoughtful in this space, so I do think it deserves consideration. So I went and dug up the paper they're talking about. [1] It's really interesting and I think probably does a better job than most of the other proposed regulations. Typical regulation is to set forth processes that companies must follow. If instead we just tell companies that 'you're responsible for not misusing this' we don't get all the bloat that can shut out small businesses, it avoids first amendment issues and instead of being antagonistic or alternative to anti trust action, it complements it. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_Balkin.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_B...
vthallam 9y ago
The fact that there's no worthy competitor to FB shows the power of the network. Zuckerberg has been really smart to acquire instagram and WhatsApp to avoid the possibility of irrelevance. If not for the acquisitions, I think FB with this kind of heat would have started being irrelevant to some of the users and many of the advertisers. The govt should have had been keeping a tab about these things in the first place. It's little too late for regulations. Even breaking up them would not help. How do regulators would make sure that the systems from different apps under FB umbrella are not sharing data with each other?
- prostoalex 9y ago
  > shows the power of the network How do stories of MySpace, Orkut, Hi5, Mixi, StudiVZ, Bebo or LiveJournal fit into this narrative? They all had massive networks and a first-mover advantage to boot.
tareqak 9y ago
I'm currently watching Mark Zuckerburg give testimony to the US House, which started at 10 AM EDT. It's available to watch on https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/facebook-transparency-use-consumer-data/ https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/facebook-transpare... , which has some additional supporting documentation (written testimony). It's also being streamed on Twitch by the Washington Post (https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost). I also have a stream like yesterday alongside Facebook's stock information (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16811290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16811290), which I posted on HN earlier. One thing that I noticed to be a sharp difference from yesterday is Mark Zuckerburg's stance on GDPR-like protections for people everywhere. I might be wrong about this account, but yesterday he said that GDPR protections will only be available in Europe. Today, he said the GDPR-like protections will be available for users everywhere. He said yesterday and today that Facebook was already implementing portions of the GDPR for years. I don't have a clip for the above yet, and I might have misheard. 12:42 PM: A Congressman (Mr. Lujan, New Mexico) just used the word "shadow profiles", and is asking about how much information Facebook has on non-users.
- lainga 9y ago
  I was wondering about this too: MZ's leaked cheatsheet said "... don't mention we are GDPR-compliant already". GDPR-compliant, not GDPR-like. He never brought that speaking point up. Does this mean FB can comply with GDPR everywhere but will choose not to?
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    It wasn't brought up in yesterday's hearings, but Facebook/MZ has actually avoided making any sort of commitment as to whether they will apply GDPR globally, or just within Europe.
    - roymurdock 9y ago
      GDPR compliance limits the data they can collect, which makes their product (ad space) less valuable, which reduces order volume/price, which reduces stock price, which means they will avoid if possible.
Pigo 9y ago
It seems comical to me that tech becomes a Congressional issue once the average age of it's users are that of members of Congress.
- tenpies 9y ago
  One of the questions has literally been "What is Facesmash and is it still active?". I am picturing that this person looked at his agenda last night, saw "Facebook hearing", opened Netflix, and started watching the Social Network. He got bored 20 minutes in and shut off his TV.
draw_down 9y ago
I literally don't understand the mindset of someone who thinks any change or action will come of such hearings. The whole point is that they are for show. The government people get to yell at the titan of industry for a few moments, politely of course. Everyone feels a little bit better, nothing actually changes, and life goes on.
Nikita_Sadkov 9y ago
Zuckerberg is a Russian puppet. I can prove that, because Facebook banned me for anti-Putin poetry in Russian!
- cozicoolmail 9y ago
  That's not proof of anything...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
badloginagain 9y ago
I find it odd that they're singling out the monopolistic nature of Facebook, when monopolistic/oligarchic industries are the norm in America.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  That it's the norm doesn't mean it isn't problematic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- xkjkls 9y ago
  That's a pretty recent development. I don't think you would argue that was true until the 80s/90s.
randomsearch 9y ago
I think a good outcome would be if Facebook were forced to sell WhatsApp and Instagram. It would punish Facebook and send a strong signal to other social networks. But Zuckerberg continues to have his baby and can compete on fair terms with rising social networks. The US Government retains its mass surveillance tool, probably their main concern. Voters get to keep using Facebook and feel like something has been done. Their representatives look like they’ve responded and everything goes back to normal. Users can vote with their feet if they still feel so inclined, and use Instagram and WhatsApp instead. New startups could compete in the space knowing that they weren’t facing one behemoth.
- fogzen 9y ago
  Punish them for what, exactly? Showing ads?
  - unethical_ban 9y ago
    That is both legally and morally up for debate. As the article describes, popular opinion is swaying against the kind of cavalier use of personal data for their benefit alone. Legally, perhaps less so, but it is at least possible at this point that they violated FTC agreements they had in place.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - fogzen 9y ago
      So I used Facebook for years. Even if my personal information was inadvertently accessed by advertisers, nobody was damaged by it. I just don't understand the outrage.
  - xkjkls 9y ago
    I don't think punish is the right word. Even if Facebook had been more clear about its privacy policies from the get-go, I think you could make a solid argument that having Instagram or WhatsApp as separate companies would be better for the creative destruction we want out of capitalist competition.
timtas 9y ago
The single strongest indicator of the inflection point where a giant company begins to implode is when the CEO is hauled into Congress and people start talking seriously about anti-trust and breakup. Standard Oil, A&P, General Motors, IBM, Microsoft, etc, etc. Bigness breeds inertia, arrogance, myopia and abuse. The only way to make a "monopoly" last is with strong government protections.

103 points by mercutio2 9y ago

Mark Zuckerberg cannot handle any form of criticism and it's just utterly weak. He constantly evaded questions and failed to give worthy answers. It was quite the spectacle. All Mark Zuckerberg really needs is a swift punch in jaw. Nonetheless, I've boycotted Facebook and the masses will follow in due time.

oliviabishop27 9y ago

Zuckerberg says he's making a lot of changes at Facebook and trying to make it better for everyone. The real question is are they? With tremendous power that Facebook has they can really topple governments or make new governments. Their power needs to be kept in check.

codegladiator 9y ago
One Man’s Tool Is Another Man’s Weapon - Bane
- mfringel 9y ago
  But Killing Someone With A Lawn Chair Is Still Non-Intuitive. -mfringel

r00fus 9y ago

What really needs to happen is GDPR here in the US. To force the Facebooks and Googles of the world to pay for the data breach liabilities (perhaps insurance could cover a breach - it would at least force them to price it). You want to profit off my data (esp. through shadow profiles)? I should have a right as to whether you should and how. This would inherently limit the utility of such breaches like CA and whatever might happen with your Google data.

jimmaswell 9y ago
Why should you "own" data that happens to be about you? If someone writes on a piece of paper that they saw you on a street at some time, should the paper now be your property? Going further, if we had the technology to selectively erase memories, do you think someone should have the right to have other people's memories erased pertaining to them? I just can't get behind this premise at all. Nothing is being taken from you when Facebook makes a shadow profile and you don't have any copyright or other intellectual property rights over your name, the fact that you went to x high school, the fact that you lived in town y, etc.
- sametmax 9y ago
  So you are ok with me having a picture of your children naked on my CDN ? Or you having sex with your wife ? I shadowed it by using the camera on your phone, you gave permissions without reading.
  - rrrazdan 9y ago
    Appeal to Extremes? In a society where we interact with other people we are okay with some information about us being 'out there'. I am okay with you knowing my school, but not that I am uncircumcised. Edit: Not that I am with OP on shadow profiles or what Facebook is doing. I think it is okay to use people's data for advertisements and other monetary benefit but you should tell that clearly to people and it should be a big opt-in decision point with lots of information provided. I just wanted to point out that your argument is a fallacious argument.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Yes but where do you draw the line ? Fb would cross mine, and it's why i never had an account.
- r00fus 9y ago
  > Nothing is being taken from you when Facebook makes a shadow profile Something is clearly being taken. The fact that it's being assembled without my consent is disturbing, the fact that FB has repeatedly been reckless with securing that data is even more worrisome. Your privacy (and possibly safety) is being taken. If a burglar can use exfiltrated FB data to know when I'm vacationing, it's information that makes me less secure. If insurance companies think I'm at a higher risk for expensive treatments, I may be denied or forced to pay a higher premium (perhaps without knowing why).

alva 9y ago

My biggest frustration is some of the questions came close to forcing some real answers, the biggest being data deletion. Zuckerberg was always extremely careful when it came to questions of account deletion. One question asked "when a user deletes their account do you erase the data", Zuckerberg visibly tripped up and referred back to "data is deleted". There is quite a bit of discussion online on whether FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed.

nemothekid 9y ago
>There is quite a bit of discussion online on whether FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed. This shouldn't be a discussion. I can't think of a single non-toy database that actually deletes data when you press DELETE. All the LSM databases (pretty much anything using Facebook's RocksDB) doesn't actually remove data until a compaction event - and MySql/Postgres don't actually delete data until you a VACUUM occurs. (then there's whole minefield of did the OS actually remove the data, or did the filesystem just mark the affected area as deleted, but didn't scrub the bits). Then theres the backups - FB may have a ton of backups in cold storage that may have your data that wasn't removed. The conversation about "FB simply marks the data in their database as deleted or whether it is actually removed." is unfruitful. The answer is "no" for almost every company on the planet, not just FB.
- anarazel 9y ago
  > Postgres don't actually delete data until you a VACUUM occurs. FWIW, a large portion of cleanup happens on access. If the entire page will not be accessed until the next VACUUM that doesn't change anything, but in OLTP workloads that space will often be reclaimed much earlier. Doesn't change anything about your larger point though.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  There is obviously a certain leeway in time allowed for a deletion request to actually be fulfilled. But other than that: if technology gets in the way what people and the law demand, it's technology that needs to change, not people.

jonbarker 9y ago

Because of unnatural time constraints nobody was able to press on his defense of "you own your data because we made a download your data button" which is a dramatic oversimplification of how the adtech ecosystem actually works. In addition, I feel that the format and time constraints were carefully set up to avoid this more important discussion, because Congress needs FB, and FB needs Congress.

Pigo 9y ago
Do they need each other because they hope to utilize them for re-elections, or is it simply because they have so much money and Congress wants some too?
- jonbarker 9y ago
  More of the former but probably a little bit of both.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

One of the most interesting proposals to me was the concept of an information fiduciary: SCHATZ: In the time I have left, I want to — I want to propose something to you and take it for the record. I read an interesting article this week by Professor Jack Balkin at Yale that proposes a concept of an information fiduciary. People think of fiduciaries as responsible primarily in the economic sense, but this is really about a trust relationship like doctors and lawyers, tech companies should hold in trust our personal data. Are you open to the idea of an information fiduciary and shrine and statute? ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I think it's certainly an interesting idea, and Jack is very thoughtful in this space, so I do think it deserves consideration. So I went and dug up the paper they're talking about. [1] It's really interesting and I think probably does a better job than most of the other proposed regulations. Typical regulation is to set forth processes that companies must follow. If instead we just tell companies that 'you're responsible for not misusing this' we don't get all the bloat that can shut out small businesses, it avoids first amendment issues and instead of being antagonistic or alternative to anti trust action, it complements it. [1] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_Balkin.pdf https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/4/Lecture/49-4_B...

vthallam 9y ago

The fact that there's no worthy competitor to FB shows the power of the network. Zuckerberg has been really smart to acquire instagram and WhatsApp to avoid the possibility of irrelevance. If not for the acquisitions, I think FB with this kind of heat would have started being irrelevant to some of the users and many of the advertisers. The govt should have had been keeping a tab about these things in the first place. It's little too late for regulations. Even breaking up them would not help. How do regulators would make sure that the systems from different apps under FB umbrella are not sharing data with each other?

prostoalex 9y ago
> shows the power of the network How do stories of MySpace, Orkut, Hi5, Mixi, StudiVZ, Bebo or LiveJournal fit into this narrative? They all had massive networks and a first-mover advantage to boot.

tareqak 9y ago

I'm currently watching Mark Zuckerburg give testimony to the US House, which started at 10 AM EDT. It's available to watch on https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/facebook-transparency-use-consumer-data/ https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/facebook-transpare... , which has some additional supporting documentation (written testimony). It's also being streamed on Twitch by the Washington Post (https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost). I also have a stream like yesterday alongside Facebook's stock information (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16811290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16811290), which I posted on HN earlier. One thing that I noticed to be a sharp difference from yesterday is Mark Zuckerburg's stance on GDPR-like protections for people everywhere. I might be wrong about this account, but yesterday he said that GDPR protections will only be available in Europe. Today, he said the GDPR-like protections will be available for users everywhere. He said yesterday and today that Facebook was already implementing portions of the GDPR for years. I don't have a clip for the above yet, and I might have misheard. 12:42 PM: A Congressman (Mr. Lujan, New Mexico) just used the word "shadow profiles", and is asking about how much information Facebook has on non-users.

lainga 9y ago
I was wondering about this too: MZ's leaked cheatsheet said "... don't mention we are GDPR-compliant already". GDPR-compliant, not GDPR-like. He never brought that speaking point up. Does this mean FB can comply with GDPR everywhere but will choose not to?
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  It wasn't brought up in yesterday's hearings, but Facebook/MZ has actually avoided making any sort of commitment as to whether they will apply GDPR globally, or just within Europe.
  - roymurdock 9y ago
    GDPR compliance limits the data they can collect, which makes their product (ad space) less valuable, which reduces order volume/price, which reduces stock price, which means they will avoid if possible.

Pigo 9y ago

It seems comical to me that tech becomes a Congressional issue once the average age of it's users are that of members of Congress.

tenpies 9y ago
One of the questions has literally been "What is Facesmash and is it still active?". I am picturing that this person looked at his agenda last night, saw "Facebook hearing", opened Netflix, and started watching the Social Network. He got bored 20 minutes in and shut off his TV.

draw_down 9y ago

I literally don't understand the mindset of someone who thinks any change or action will come of such hearings. The whole point is that they are for show. The government people get to yell at the titan of industry for a few moments, politely of course. Everyone feels a little bit better, nothing actually changes, and life goes on.

Nikita_Sadkov 9y ago

Zuckerberg is a Russian puppet. I can prove that, because Facebook banned me for anti-Putin poetry in Russian!

cozicoolmail 9y ago
That's not proof of anything...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

badloginagain 9y ago

I find it odd that they're singling out the monopolistic nature of Facebook, when monopolistic/oligarchic industries are the norm in America.

mieseratte 9y ago
That it's the norm doesn't mean it isn't problematic.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xkjkls 9y ago
That's a pretty recent development. I don't think you would argue that was true until the 80s/90s.

randomsearch 9y ago

I think a good outcome would be if Facebook were forced to sell WhatsApp and Instagram. It would punish Facebook and send a strong signal to other social networks. But Zuckerberg continues to have his baby and can compete on fair terms with rising social networks. The US Government retains its mass surveillance tool, probably their main concern. Voters get to keep using Facebook and feel like something has been done. Their representatives look like they’ve responded and everything goes back to normal. Users can vote with their feet if they still feel so inclined, and use Instagram and WhatsApp instead. New startups could compete in the space knowing that they weren’t facing one behemoth.

fogzen 9y ago
Punish them for what, exactly? Showing ads?
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  That is both legally and morally up for debate. As the article describes, popular opinion is swaying against the kind of cavalier use of personal data for their benefit alone. Legally, perhaps less so, but it is at least possible at this point that they violated FTC agreements they had in place.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fogzen 9y ago
    So I used Facebook for years. Even if my personal information was inadvertently accessed by advertisers, nobody was damaged by it. I just don't understand the outrage.
- xkjkls 9y ago
  I don't think punish is the right word. Even if Facebook had been more clear about its privacy policies from the get-go, I think you could make a solid argument that having Instagram or WhatsApp as separate companies would be better for the creative destruction we want out of capitalist competition.

timtas 9y ago

The single strongest indicator of the inflection point where a giant company begins to implode is when the CEO is hauled into Congress and people start talking seriously about anti-trust and breakup. Standard Oil, A&P, General Motors, IBM, Microsoft, etc, etc. Bigness breeds inertia, arrogance, myopia and abuse. The only way to make a "monopoly" last is with strong government protections.