4 ms·

Your entire post boils down to, "just trust the billionaires!" No, we won't. They are liars and cheaters, the lot of them, and we aren't going to trust them an

Your entire post boils down to, "just trust the billionaires!" No, we won't. They are liars and cheaters, the lot of them, and we aren't going to trust them any more. They said in court "we didn't do that" so then you post it here that everything is okay, but I don't trust it. Not one bit. None of us do, or should, trust what those companies say. Mark Zuckerberg is a liar. The whole concept of, "We're doing the right thing with your data, just trust us" is ridiculous. He already called you and I and every single one of us a literal "dumb fuck" for trusting Facebook with the data. Mark Zuckerberg would be banned from HN for vile language if he were here. Clearly, we are not meant to trust him or any of them at their word. They lie and they know it. NO, zaroth, I do not believe a single part of any of the quotes you wrote. I don't believe them. We also know that Zuckerberg was intentionally misleading or lying in recent EU appearances. > How else was the UI rendering your Facebook Feed?! This kind of incredulous, "we must have Facebook on our phones, what else were we supposed to do?!" is silly. Facebook and these partners clearly overstepped their bounds. > But the NYT apparently thinks this is nefarious in some way. What? You then quoted the NYT listing a series of facts. Nowhere does the NYT say anything like nefarious or anything like that. You are making things up. > ... fake controversy ... Did you just call this whole thing fake? Like, the controversy itself? It's not fake..... This HN thread's existence proves the controversy is real. This stuff is not fake.

zaroth 8y ago
I get it that you are channeling Stallman and that you think your device is spying on you. And by all means lets fight that fight and write those stories. But that’s not the story that the NYT has published here. I’m incredulous that programmers and hackers would feign surprise that a UI rendering a Facebook feed would necessarily use an API which returned a data structure with... your fucking Facebook feed. If device manufactures or OS developers (Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Google, etc.) are exfiltrating personal data off of your device — and BTW my Facebook feed would be the least of my concerns in that case — prove it, and the point your pitchforks at them.
- detaro 8y ago
  The article cites Facebook as the source for partners having that data on their servers. Is that evidence enough?
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Which partners? In what form? For what purpose? Are we talking about cache data like Amazon Silk? Encrypted backups? It doesn’t help the discussion to conflate user agents with third party applications. But user agents do sometimes push our private data to their own servers — like Chrome’s Omnibar — and if and where that is happening, and how that data is used, absolutely should be disclosed by the device manufacturer.
    - detaro 8y ago
      If the bit about "on their servers" didn't refer to device partners I would have expected Facebooks response[1] to the article to call that out as misleading, but it didn't. I hope too we'll see details somewhere to get a better judgement of how bad/not bad it is. [1] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...
      - zaroth 8y ago
        Thanks for the link! I had not read Facebook’s response but it seems to me to perfectly describe what actually occurred with these APIs and highlights what NYT got wrong with this story.
- cryptoz 8y ago
  > you think your device is spying on you Well, of course it is. Ridiculous to think smartphones aren't spying on their users in this day and age. > But that’s not the story that the NYT has published here. Uh, yes it is. > I’m incredulous that programmers and hackers would feign surprise that a UI rendering a Facebook feed would necessarily use an API which returned a data structure with... your fucking Facebook feed. I'm incredulous at this sentence. Good lord what anger you have for people just being people. I don't see anyone here "feigning" surprise! I haven't seen that at all about this topic. No need to swear, either. We can talk like reasonable people. > If device manufactures or OS developers (Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Google, etc.) are exfiltrating personal data off of your device — and BTW my Facebook feed would be the least of my concerns in that case — prove it, and the point your pitchforks at them. I don't have a pitchfork out and I have absolutely no idea what you're ranting about. This swearing, pitchfork holding comment makes no sense to me. Didn't they take the data anyway? Sounds like you should have your pitchfork out and pointed at Apple, et. al. This is a privacy concern and that's real. It's not fake, it's real. Nobody is "feigning" concern, this is a real concern, we are not fake people writing fake opinions.

zaroth 8y ago

I get it that you are channeling Stallman and that you think your device is spying on you. And by all means lets fight that fight and write those stories. But that’s not the story that the NYT has published here. I’m incredulous that programmers and hackers would feign surprise that a UI rendering a Facebook feed would necessarily use an API which returned a data structure with... your fucking Facebook feed. If device manufactures or OS developers (Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Google, etc.) are exfiltrating personal data off of your device — and BTW my Facebook feed would be the least of my concerns in that case — prove it, and the point your pitchforks at them.

detaro 8y ago
The article cites Facebook as the source for partners having that data on their servers. Is that evidence enough?
- zaroth 8y ago
  Which partners? In what form? For what purpose? Are we talking about cache data like Amazon Silk? Encrypted backups? It doesn’t help the discussion to conflate user agents with third party applications. But user agents do sometimes push our private data to their own servers — like Chrome’s Omnibar — and if and where that is happening, and how that data is used, absolutely should be disclosed by the device manufacturer.
  - detaro 8y ago
    If the bit about "on their servers" didn't refer to device partners I would have expected Facebooks response[1] to the article to call that out as misleading, but it didn't. I hope too we'll see details somewhere to get a better judgement of how bad/not bad it is. [1] https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-th...
    - zaroth 8y ago
      Thanks for the link! I had not read Facebook’s response but it seems to me to perfectly describe what actually occurred with these APIs and highlights what NYT got wrong with this story.
cryptoz 8y ago
> you think your device is spying on you Well, of course it is. Ridiculous to think smartphones aren't spying on their users in this day and age. > But that’s not the story that the NYT has published here. Uh, yes it is. > I’m incredulous that programmers and hackers would feign surprise that a UI rendering a Facebook feed would necessarily use an API which returned a data structure with... your fucking Facebook feed. I'm incredulous at this sentence. Good lord what anger you have for people just being people. I don't see anyone here "feigning" surprise! I haven't seen that at all about this topic. No need to swear, either. We can talk like reasonable people. > If device manufactures or OS developers (Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, Google, etc.) are exfiltrating personal data off of your device — and BTW my Facebook feed would be the least of my concerns in that case — prove it, and the point your pitchforks at them. I don't have a pitchfork out and I have absolutely no idea what you're ranting about. This swearing, pitchfork holding comment makes no sense to me. Didn't they take the data anyway? Sounds like you should have your pitchfork out and pointed at Apple, et. al. This is a privacy concern and that's real. It's not fake, it's real. Nobody is "feigning" concern, this is a real concern, we are not fake people writing fake opinions.