7 ms·

The Facts About Facebook

• MattyMc 8y ago
  I'm blocked behind a paywall.
  • gouggoug 8y ago
    copy and paste the link in google and load it from the search results
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• jaytaylor 8y ago
  Paywall bypass: https://outline.com/tM3TCU https://outline.com/tM3TCU
  • brd529 8y ago
    Looks like outline disabled WSJ links, or at least this one. You can get full text by following the link from Mark's fb post: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10106257635829431 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10106257635829431
    • yasp 8y ago
      Works on my local :)
    • dredmorbius 8y ago
      WFM on reload.
• seppin 8y ago
  "When I started Facebook, I wasn’t trying to build a global company." Why is he still saying this? No one is buying the dorm startup story anymore. You control world media, act accordingly.
  • product50 8y ago
    Speak for yourself
  • bertil 8y ago
    He is saying that because he is regularly accused of having a financial objective, which isn‘t true. Like any moral claim, he can’t prove it unless he gives all his money (which he has done, but somehow that hasn’t worked) so he’s trying to prove the purity of his intentions by their origin. He’s been very open about the influence on media and the responsibility that it gives him. Say what you want about his education, ‘Noblesse oblige’ the idea that having responsibilities demands that you act in a certain way, was very much a part of it.
• danamkaplan 8y ago
  "People consistently tell us that if they’re going to see ads, they want them to be relevant." I am assuming the "people" he is referencing are the advertisers, not the users.
  • adoago 8y ago
    This really does feel like a false choice. Do you want to see ads? > No You have to. Now would you prefer those ads are relevant or irrelevant?
    • product50 8y ago
      Would you rather pay FB for providing you a service?
  • ipsum2 8y ago
    Would you prefer to see irrelevant ads instead?
    • danamkaplan 8y ago
      Sure, if it involves less data collection.
      • danamkaplan 8y ago
        I'd rather try to be sold something I don't care about, so I can walk away from that ad.
    • adoago 8y ago
      I think we need to clarify some terms here. Advertising by its very nature is disruptive. It's goal is to interrupt you or grab your attention so that you look at SOMETHING and become aware of it, start to form associations, etc. There really isn't such thing is "relevant" advertising in the sense that ads pertain to my current activity, which, by the way, Zuck insists is "connecting to people." The real question you're asking is: Would you rather trade some of your data so we can show you ads that you are more likely to click because we have ascertained that these value propositions are likely to drive some kind of an action? (And by the way action is all we really ever know, and is a so-so proxy for "relevance" or value to the user, c.f., clickbait.) When you ask this question I'm inclined to say some users wouldn't consider this an awesome trade. That's being modest. Disclosure: I make digital ads for a living.
• firasd 8y ago
  I don't agree with a lot of the recent anti-Facebook narrative (much of it is prompted by the 2016 election), but I have always been a bit uncomfortable with the 'connecting people' thing he talks about here. Although I like when someone I haven't talked to since high school 'likes' a status update of mine, I don't actually want to be connected to everyone. If I go to a party I don't need my Uncle to see the pics. I think that is what is prompting declining FB usage among young people anyway, the fact that your Mom and your neighborhood grocery store owner is on there makes it different than what FB was ten years ago. I also believe him when he says that Facebook doesn't purposefully host unseemly material that drives up engagement. Their newsfeed has always changed to reduce that kinda thing (app notifications circa 2008, clickbait titles circa 2011, infographics, quizzes, etc... they all have their run and then get tuned out.) Although Facebook has always been fanatical about growth so I guess it's more about long-term vs short-term engagement vs. not caring about engagement at all.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • danamkaplan 8y ago
    Looks like a classic non answer to me: "Some worry that ads create a misalignment of interests between us and people who use our services. I’m often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it’s not in people’s best interests. We’re very focused on helping people share and connect more, because the purpose of our service is to help people stay in touch with family, friends and communities. But from a business perspective, it’s important that their time is well spent, or they won’t use our services as much over the long term. Clickbait and other junk may drive engagement in the near term, but it would be foolish for us to show this intentionally, because it’s not what people want." So are you NOT showing that? Seems like FB has the outrage non-story click baits to drive the short term engagement with the "it's the ONLY place where my friends and family communicate" for long term. EDIT: He says the automated removal can't catch everything. in the following paragraph. Great, then remove the newsfeed until it can be AI cleaned to NON society destroying levels. Will definitely remove that short term engagement Zuck says he doesn't care about.
• Deimorz 8y ago
  A Pew study released last week showed that (among other things) 74% of Facebook users did not know Facebook was maintaining a list of their interests/traits, 51% were uncomfortable with it, and 27% felt the list was inaccurate: http://www.pewinternet.org/2019/01/16/facebook-algorithms-and-personal-data/ http://www.pewinternet.org/2019/01/16/facebook-algorithms-an...
  • rchaud 8y ago
    This is consistent with what we should expect when most users still use the same password (or predictable variation thereof) for their bank/email/social logins.
• beezischillin 8y ago
  Facebook's been ramping up their censorship of their users to an unbearable extent. Apart from losing control of the situation when it comes to peoples' data, they're also losing control of their attempts to purge their own platform of things Silicon Valley tech giants frown upon on their own platforms. "Getting Zucc'd" is an internet meme for a reason. I have friends who got suspended from the platform for 30-some days for posting pictures of their children to their own profile. Just children, doing children stuff. Not naked, not doing anything wrong or illegal by anyone's moral standards. I myself got suspended for 7 days by posting a completely apolitical, non-offensive joke to a private group that their system deemed evil. And then caught another 30 day suspension when I posted a screenshot of my suspension to my friends to laugh at how stupid the situation was. I've had enough of it. As personal as the experience is, before it used to be that people who were getting suspended had very easily understandable reasons behind it: when someone posted stupid, edgy stuff and got punished for it then at least you knew why it happened and acknowledged that it was fair enough. I understand that this is all anecdotal, but nowadays it's been very common to see my active friends be on timeouts. Why? Facebook does not offer one iota of support for their users, be it when they get banned or have issues on the platform that a human should see. You're not getting through, clicking the buttons does nothing. Just like Google. I have a friend who unfortunately attracted the attention of a mentally ill stalker, she was harassed and threatened for months by this stalker and his friends, she almost ended up committing suicide due to this. Our circle of friends reported this person to Facebook and they deemed it to be completely acceptable and allowed it to continue. Not even mentioning the whole psychological experimentation crap they were doing with the goal of keeping people glued to their platforms by any means necessary, even if it means driving them into depression. When people look at Facebook and the things that have been leaking out into the world, people don't care for any excuses anymore. And it might not be fair but they're giving Facebook the treatment they received. Even if the media sensationalises the whole anti-Facebook thing, a lot of people resent it for a reason. I simply contacted my friends, left them alternative ways of contacting me and requested that my account be deleted. Happy birthday to Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg. This is the 15th year of hollow excuses and empty, soulless explanations.
  • fossuser 8y ago
    I find the account suspensions for innocuous things pretty hard to believe - since I'd suspect any action like that came from your friends reporting your content, not automated culling of users.
• vecnotron 8y ago
  in this PR piece the "political" point (by political I don't mean electoral, but power above communities and indivuduals) still miss. The algorithms decides what a facebook user will see. what become viral, what is trustworthy and what is not. this is never mentioned in the transparency promises, and still, transparency would not be enough (too many unaccountable variables in the neural network). People should get chronological ordered content in machine readable format. client side, your personalization algorithm would decide which priorities give. I work for this, and I feel is there where the true challenge is. If you want to hack on this, please follow up on this comment.
• cageface 8y ago
  Hosting user-generated content in general is a mug's game these days. I wouldn't even consider launching a new startup in this space now and it's only going to get worse as the regulatory hammer comes down. I'm not a fan of Facebook at all but a lot of their current troubles are intrinsic to any platform that lets people post whatever they want.
• paulcole 8y ago
  A little trick I use is to give them my credit card number and they let me read their articles!
  • crispinb 8y ago
    Practical for a few sites that one might choose as private portals. Not (except for the extremely wealthy) if you use the web via its natural affordances.
    • paulcole 8y ago
      Yeah pick and choose the ones you want to subscribe to. Doesn’t mean you’re entitled to the private portals you don’t want to pay for.
      • crispinb 8y ago
        Actually none of the standard means (ie. not stealing/hacking logins , but using archives, caches & reading services) are illegal in my jurisdiction, so I am perfectly entitled to do just that. Your approach fits an old fashioned way of reading (ie. reading primarily a small group of publications). Personally if I were to do that I'd rather buy paper. A huge part of the point of the web to me is to be able to read articles from a multiplicity of individual sources, not be corralled within a few. This affordance doesn't suit site subscriptions, which are fundamentally anti-web.
        • paulcole 8y ago
          Well you’re not entitled to it. It’s something that’s available for sale and you’re willing to take it without paying for it because it’s technically not illegal where you live. Congrats lol.
          • tomhoward 8y ago
            WSJ and other publications clearly welcome readers bypassing their paywall when they land via Facebook and other referrers. Are you saying it's OK to give people a hard time for reading the content for free when they enter via Facebook, but not via a different channel? It seems a fine point to make a big deal out of.
• cryoshon 8y ago
  there are many problems with this article. let us begin to unravel them. problem one is claiming that this article is "the facts". it is not the facts. it is a PR piece. the subtitle of the article is "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising." but that isn't factual. you don't need my information. you need some people's information to make money. those people don't get to control how you make that money. >Recently I’ve heard many questions about our business model, so I want to explain the principles of how we operate. I believe everyone should have a voice and be able to connect. If we’re committed to serving everyone, then we need a service that is affordable to everyone. The best way to do that is to offer services for free, which ads enable us to do. he starts by saying "business model" then starts mentioning non sequitors. he doesn't want to talk about the business model at all because it will make him look bad. he is intentionally conflating his product -- people -- with his customers -- advertisers. >People consistently tell us that if they’re going to see ads, they want them to be relevant. no. nobody says this. nobody tells you this. nobody wants to see ads, ever. especially not ads which are derived from spying on their most intimate activities. >That means we need to understand their interests no. this is not factual. you need to understand their buying habits. furthermore, this is still not a discussion of FB's business model. >The internet also allows far greater transparency and control over what ads you see than TV, radio or print once again, this is a non-sequitor. furthermore, "allows" is a lie by omission. the technological capacity is there. but it is not exercised. and "transparency" does not equal control. and let's be honest: nobody has any control over what ads companies try to serve them with via e-stalking. >On Facebook, you have control over what information we use to show you ads, and you can block any advertiser from reaching you. You can find out why you’re seeing an ad and change your preferences to get ads you’re interested in a non sequitor, again. they harvest the information either way. blocking the advertiser does not block them from harvesting your info or finding another way to monetize it. the user's preferences regarding seeings ads are irrelevant because their preference is to never see an ad, which is not an allowed action for them to take because they do not have any control. >Still, some are concerned about the complexity of this model. no, incorrect, wrong. nobody is concerned about the complexity. people are concerned about the way facebook invades their privacy. a bad faith argument by zuck, to be sure. >This model can feel opaque, and we’re all distrustful of systems we don’t understand. no, incorrect, again a complete whiff of an answer. people are distrustful of companies who have an incentive to exploit them. everyone understands FB does not have their interests at heart, there is no ambiguity. >For example, we don’t sell people’s data, even though it’s often reported that we do perhaps the biggest factual inaccuracy in the article; truly this is a titanic lie which nobody can even hope to unpack. suffice it to say we shouldn't even give his misrepresentation any consideration. >In fact, selling people’s information to advertisers would be counter to our business interests, because it would reduce the unique value of our service to advertisers. again, a massive misrepresentation which is intentionally deceptive. >I’m often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it’s not in people’s best interests. i think we all know enough about the addiction economy to laugh at this statement. >And when we asked people for permission to use this information to improve their ads as part of our compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the vast majority agreed because they prefer more relevant ads. implying that the users even understood what they were being asked to agree to is a hilarious mistake of something to say. the rest is similarly bad. it will be a joy to see facebook torn to shreds by regulators and abandoned by users. it is long overdue.
• bertil 8y ago
  Mark talks about the control that users have. I am disappointed that Mark didn't take the opportunity to simply link to that page. Too few people know about https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/ https://www.facebook.com/ads/preferences/.
• happppy 8y ago
  Do I really have to subscribe or sign in to read this article? No, thanks.