5 ms·

It wasn't just FB. the trend was "openness", let the world know everything you do. It was actively pushed by all the media who are today accusing FB of going to

It wasn't just FB. the trend was "openness", let the world know everything you do. It was actively pushed by all the media who are today accusing FB of going to far. When facebook was doing everything in and out of the books to grow faster and faster (such as allowing zynga to force-invite your friends to their games) , they were all looking the other way, because they saw a massive source of traffic that they could control themselves (facebook was giving untapped access to likes/followers back then).

TAForObvReasons 8y ago
People sounded the alarm many years ago. EFF from 2009 "predicted" a CA-like event would happen as a direct result of FB policy changes: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-... Rest assured, not everyone in technology openly embraced the externality-disregarding "move fast and break things" ideology that took hold of SV in the last decade or so.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  > Rest assured, not everyone in technology openly embraced the externality-disregarding "move fast and break things" ideology that took hold of SV in the last decade or so. To be honest tho, like I can't blame them, I dont think they were aware of the consequences this might have.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    As bad as Trump is, as bad as the potential foreign propaganda affecting election outcomes is, I'm worried the solution will be worse than the problem. I suspect the two incumbent parties will use this as an opportunity to further cement the two-party system, making it more difficult for third parties or political "outsiders" to have successful campaigns. Russian spending on FB ads was a drop in the ocean compared to the total spend. Congress clearly doesn't care about our privacy as evidenced by the domestic spying programs. Without trying to go too far down the conspiracy rabbit hole, we need to figure out what their real motivation is here. My personal opinion is that they will make it harder for outsiders, including other political parties, to gain any traction.
    - adamnemecek 8y ago
      I share some of your concerns. However re Russian spending, I think that that the current spending estimates are on the lower end. Also the money was spent less wastefully so it might have ended up having larger effect than assumed.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        >Also the money was spent less wastefully so it might have ended up having larger effect than assumed. My understanding is the opposite. First, money was spent on both sides. Yes, the majority was in favor of Trump but at least two anti-Trump rallies were allegedly started by Russians. Second, not all the money was spent in swing states. Third, at least according to one FB executive more than half was spent after the election. I'm not suggesting that Russian ads didn't affect the outcome, this was such a close election that even small things could have swayed it one way or the other. At the same time we don't need to exaggerate what really happened.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    They might not have been aware, but to me, that just indicates that they didn't think about the consequences. Other people, who did, fairly accurately predicted that something like CA would happen.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

People sounded the alarm many years ago. EFF from 2009 "predicted" a CA-like event would happen as a direct result of FB policy changes: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-... Rest assured, not everyone in technology openly embraced the externality-disregarding "move fast and break things" ideology that took hold of SV in the last decade or so.

adamnemecek 8y ago
> Rest assured, not everyone in technology openly embraced the externality-disregarding "move fast and break things" ideology that took hold of SV in the last decade or so. To be honest tho, like I can't blame them, I dont think they were aware of the consequences this might have.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  As bad as Trump is, as bad as the potential foreign propaganda affecting election outcomes is, I'm worried the solution will be worse than the problem. I suspect the two incumbent parties will use this as an opportunity to further cement the two-party system, making it more difficult for third parties or political "outsiders" to have successful campaigns. Russian spending on FB ads was a drop in the ocean compared to the total spend. Congress clearly doesn't care about our privacy as evidenced by the domestic spying programs. Without trying to go too far down the conspiracy rabbit hole, we need to figure out what their real motivation is here. My personal opinion is that they will make it harder for outsiders, including other political parties, to gain any traction.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    I share some of your concerns. However re Russian spending, I think that that the current spending estimates are on the lower end. Also the money was spent less wastefully so it might have ended up having larger effect than assumed.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      >Also the money was spent less wastefully so it might have ended up having larger effect than assumed. My understanding is the opposite. First, money was spent on both sides. Yes, the majority was in favor of Trump but at least two anti-Trump rallies were allegedly started by Russians. Second, not all the money was spent in swing states. Third, at least according to one FB executive more than half was spent after the election. I'm not suggesting that Russian ads didn't affect the outcome, this was such a close election that even small things could have swayed it one way or the other. At the same time we don't need to exaggerate what really happened.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  They might not have been aware, but to me, that just indicates that they didn't think about the consequences. Other people, who did, fairly accurately predicted that something like CA would happen.