5 ms·
I'd love to hear a Facebook critic rebut this thread re: the article: https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1
by koboll 8y ago
I'd love to hear a Facebook critic rebut this thread re: the article:
https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064 https://twitter.com/_mades/status/1075228269845336064
What this seems to boil down to is a side channel for certain partners with looser technical controls but tighter monitoring of misuse, and no evidence that that tradeoff actually resulted in any misuse that couldn't have occurred through normal data access channels.
- smackfu 8y agoIf you don’t trust Facebook to do the right thing, that thread is not much of a defense, since it just says they will police their partners.
- Ajedi32 8y agoIt also sounds like access to certain APIs was much more limited than the NYT article implied: > When you hear things like read/write access that access was only granted when the user gave permission. For example, if you share a Netflix link to messenger, the post is coming from Netflix. > If you're sharing using messenger, you're able to search who you're sharing with through Netflix. If you then delete the message within Netflix, it would delete on Facebook. Very similar to using Tweetdeck for Twitter - same permissions
- koboll 8y agoIt's not a matter of whether I trust them. It's a matter of whether any misuse of data actually occurred, or whether this is a lot of innuendo with no evidence that any harm was, or even could be, done.