5 ms·
Facebook's public response destroyed every social media company's presumption of good faith. > “In 2015, GSR did have one-time API access to a random sample of
by TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Facebook's public response destroyed every social media company's presumption of good faith.
> “In 2015, GSR did have one-time API access to a random sample of public tweets from a five-month period from December 2014 to April 2015,” Twitter said in a statement to Bloomberg. “Based on the recent reports, we conducted our own internal review and did not find any access to private data about people who use Twitter.”
Facebook kept changing their message regarding the affected accounts, from nothing to 87M and now possibly way more.
There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Under any other circumstance they would have some presumption of good faith, but given what happened with Facebook there's a good chance we will hear more.
- detaro 9y ago> There's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. Do you have any specific reason to mention that or are we just listing all data they have?
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoEveryone is in agreement that public tweets are public. Twitter also has Direct Messages [1], which they represent as private: > Direct Messages are the private side of Twitter. You can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with people about Tweets and other content. I think @stingraycharles was surprised by the response because the discussion surrounded publicly accessible information. The poster might not have realized that Twitter had information that is reasonably considered "private" as well. If DM information (metadata or raw messages) were made available, that would be surprising to millions of Twitter users. And I think we will see more scrutiny of Twitter and other companies in the coming months regarding the use of "private" information. Unless, of course, you believe that SV and tech companies are not to be trusted in the first place, in which case none of this would be surprising or shocking. [1] https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages
- downandout 9y agoThere's a possibility that Twitter might have sold DM information as well. No, there’s not. They don’t sell DMs.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y agoI don’t know, and can’t know. So, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know for sure?
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoTwitter said they didn't, therefore it must be true /s
- stochastic_monk 9y agoThere’s also a difference between selling DMs and DM information. Edit: For clarification, it matters if whom you contacted is shared even if the content is not.
- koolba 9y agoOr if they did only who you messaged and when. Not the text of the message, just “metadata”.
- sudouser 9y ago...like someone important messaged Stormy Daniels...
- downandout 9y agoBecause they don’t offer DMs or DM metadata for sale. This Kogan guy had no special connections at Twitter or even Facebook for that matter. He was an independent developer using off the shelf offerings of Twitter and Facebook to get what he was after. If DMs aren’t for sale (they’re not) then he didn’t get them.
- nl 9y agoThey don’t sell DMs. Source: I had a GNIP account.