4 ms·

I have a problem with the way NYT is reporting on this whole thing. The most egregious sounding parts of this (eg giving Spotify and Netflix the ability to read

by kbos87 8y ago

I have a problem with the way NYT is reporting on this whole thing. The most egregious sounding parts of this (eg giving Spotify and Netflix the ability to read your messages) sounds like it was entirely tangential to what those agreements were all about. It’s definitely something Facebook should be getting heat for, but there wasn’t some colluding agreement to let RBC mine their customers’ messages, as NYT makes it sound.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Where does it say that RBC was mining customers’ messages? And how do you know they did not, when apparently they don’t care enough about users’ privacy to even inform them, and continued said practice even after getting lots of uncomfortable questions?
- kbos87 8y ago
  They don’t need to say it. The way the headline reads and the story is architected is designed to hook readers by implying the worst.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
    So you’re now just making stuff up, then accusing the New York Times for lying to you?
_jal 8y ago
I have a problem with FB's two-faced bullshit, over multiple years, of lying through its teeth to the krill and selling them out with glee on the quiet. It is just who they are. This is why I blackhole their IP space. It is always a mistake, or really we were doing this less-awful sounding thing, it is complicated. And then it comes out that, yet again, it was actually worse that it seemed. Sometimes people change. In this case, it is pretty clear that Zuckerberg still thinks people who trust him are dumb fucks.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Move fast and break things.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bogomipz 8y ago
>"I have a problem with the way NYT is reporting on this whole thing." What "way" is that? By reporting facts? What "whole thing"? Facebook sharing user's data with third parties without user's consent and then lying to congress about the continued existence of it? And doing so while they were under a consent decree by the FTC You mean that "whole thing"? They talked to 60 people for this piece including former FB employees and partners, they reviewed 270 pages of internal FB documents regarding the program. There were 5 contributors to the article. To suggest that this is just some flimsy piece of yellow journalism is a joke. >"The most egregious sounding parts of this (eg giving Spotify and Netflix the ability to read your messages) sounds like it was entirely tangential to what those agreements were all about." Unless you work for FB and were involved in negotiating these agreements how do you know "what those agreements were all about"? What we do know was that FB allowed third parties to access user's data without those user's knowledge or consent. Access to user data was exactly point, the carelessness with which FB did that can hardly be seen as a "tangent."

by kbos87 8y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

Where does it say that RBC was mining customers’ messages? And how do you know they did not, when apparently they don’t care enough about users’ privacy to even inform them, and continued said practice even after getting lots of uncomfortable questions?

kbos87 8y ago
They don’t need to say it. The way the headline reads and the story is architected is designed to hook readers by implying the worst.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
  So you’re now just making stuff up, then accusing the New York Times for lying to you?

_jal 8y ago

I have a problem with FB's two-faced bullshit, over multiple years, of lying through its teeth to the krill and selling them out with glee on the quiet. It is just who they are. This is why I blackhole their IP space. It is always a mistake, or really we were doing this less-awful sounding thing, it is complicated. And then it comes out that, yet again, it was actually worse that it seemed. Sometimes people change. In this case, it is pretty clear that Zuckerberg still thinks people who trust him are dumb fucks.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
Move fast and break things.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bogomipz 8y ago

>"I have a problem with the way NYT is reporting on this whole thing." What "way" is that? By reporting facts? What "whole thing"? Facebook sharing user's data with third parties without user's consent and then lying to congress about the continued existence of it? And doing so while they were under a consent decree by the FTC You mean that "whole thing"? They talked to 60 people for this piece including former FB employees and partners, they reviewed 270 pages of internal FB documents regarding the program. There were 5 contributors to the article. To suggest that this is just some flimsy piece of yellow journalism is a joke. >"The most egregious sounding parts of this (eg giving Spotify and Netflix the ability to read your messages) sounds like it was entirely tangential to what those agreements were all about." Unless you work for FB and were involved in negotiating these agreements how do you know "what those agreements were all about"? What we do know was that FB allowed third parties to access user's data without those user's knowledge or consent. Access to user data was exactly point, the carelessness with which FB did that can hardly be seen as a "tangent."