3 ms·

Sounds like you might work at Facebook. If so, mild inconvenience or not, I am glad it happened. Going around the terms stated in an agreement to accomplish s

Sounds like you might work at Facebook. If so, mild inconvenience or not, I am glad it happened. Going around the terms stated in an agreement to accomplish something forbidden by the agreement is a type of fraud. Fraud is illegal. People are really starting to hate Facebook these days, and your guys' attitude doesn't seem to be changing much because of it. I, for one, LOVE this, because it means by the time you do recognize your sliding favor among customers, it will be too late for you to do anything about it. You will become the new Myspace, which is exactly what you deserve to be. If you don't work for Facebook, then none of the above applies to you. [EDIT:] the parent comment was deleted. The comment stated something to the effect of "It wasn't a big deal, it didn't affect our workflows or production applications."

remote_phone 8y ago
I didn’t delete or edit my comment. I completely understand now what my friends at Uber were saying about the Internet hivemind and especially the HN hivemind. Journalists routinely manipulate their stories to tell the story they want to tell, and right now it’s “Facebook is evil.” You are entitled to your opinion but nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. In a large company there will always be bad apples but to paint an entire company as somehow being a conspiracy is frankly mind boggling. I would love to turn the mirror on all the haters and see how their lives would be if journalists reported manipulated facts on the worst moments of their lives.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  You should consider learning about more systemic definitions of evil rather than imagining it embodied in some caricature of a human being. Your individual intent matters very little.
  - dang 8y ago
    Speaking of systemic effects, please don't pile on this user, or any other individual who happens to be in a position that the majority hates right now. That quickly develops into an ugly dynamic that we don't want here. What you posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046964 is unmistakeably a step in that brutal direction. This comment goes for everybody.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > You are entitled to your opinion but nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, but there are relatively few cases where there is near-universal agreement of what is or is not ethical (i.e. "ethical" is a value judgment); that's why ethics courses teach methods and structures to argue one way or the other. Your particular case is, I am fairly sure, not one of those "universal agreement" cases. I don't know what exactly you do at Facebook, but a number of people conclude that some or large parts of Facebooks operation are unethical. Additionally, individual conduct in a larger system is generally not pertinent to the outcome of said larger system. An usual example is people in the Manhattan project not knowing that they are working towards offensive nuclear weapons, and of course various examples related to Nazis, but that may not be the best example when you (the recipient) seem to be trapped in a world of absolute ethics.
- driverdan 8y ago
  Facebook has had countless incidents of violating user privacy and trust. This is just the latest. When a company has the same problems happening over and over across different departments it's clear there's a company-wide problem.
  - asark 8y ago
    Even without the definitely-evil incidents that have occurred, simply greedily collecting and then hoarding that much information about people is so grossly and willfully negligent as to qualify. The very basis of everything they do is hopelessly tainted. Yes, that makes an awful lot of other companies—not just tech-first companies—pretty damn evil, too. "Everyone's doing it" and "it's not illegal and is making us money" aren't defenses I accept for this disgusting behavior. [EDIT] that said, piling on people for working at evil companies is probably unproductive and unfair for many of the same reasons that e.g. boycotts are wildly ineffective, plus such a large percentage of the economy's kinda-evil that the whole thing would get confusing and nasty and kinda pointless. Piling on someone for being delusional about whether their employer is evil, though... well, that's an awful lot less unfair.
- naikrovek 8y ago
  > nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. Don't you see? Everyone who turned out to be evil in the end would have said and felt the exact same way while they were actually doing their evil. People and corporations do the things they do because they feel they have the right to do those things, and that they are justified in doing those things, in virtually all cases. That is the case for people and corporations who, in hindsight, did lots of evil and unethical things as well. In the future that may very well include Facebook. And every last Facebook employee will claim that they had no idea what was going on, and/or that they weren't a part of the "evil side" of Facebook, or whatever they have to say to themselves to maintain the illusion that they did nothing wrong. Your actions alone are not what decide if what you are doing is immoral. If you are in the armed services and you assemble or maintain weaponry designed to kill people (as I did in the US Air Force) then that work is arguably evil and immoral. I feel that what I did was immoral, and at the time I would have laughed at anyone that said turning a torque wrench is immoral. I was doing my job. I was tightening bolts to 100 in/lb and I was putting guidance systems onto test equipment to make sure they worked. I was making sure that those devices would kill when someone set them loose. I definitely did not believe that I was doing anything wrong at the time, and I definitely believe that I was in the wrong today, depending on how those weapons are or will be used. If they are used to sate some evil maniac like our current president then I did immoral work. If they are used to keep peace, then I did not. Weapons are rarely used to keep peace, however. Grenades are not peacekeeping weapons. Scatter bombs are not peacekeeping weapons. Facebook spying on children without consent is not a justifiable action. Facebook working around the language of their agreement with Apple in order to do something forbidden by that agreement is not a justifiable action.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  > Journalists routinely manipulate their stories to tell the story they want to tell, and right now it’s “Facebook is evil.” Could you point to something that was reported in the main-stream press about a Facebook incident that was untrue?
scarejunba 8y ago
> Going around the terms stated in an agreement to accomplish something forbidden by the agreement is a type of fraud. Fraud is illegal. It’s going to be hard for me to take this seriously on a website where the traditional way to read WSJ and NYT articles is by using services that violate the newspaper ToS. It just sounds like pseudo-sanctimony.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  I agree in principle, but you are unfairly painting every person on HN as if they agree with such behavior.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Certainly I find it suspicious if both views are simultaneously upvoted. If you must, read my comment as impugning the integrity of those who actually hold both views. Considering that both the view that TOS are sacrosanct and the view that HN readers should have paywall free access to these news sources are widely popular and have few, if any, detractors, I’m quite comfortable saying what I did.
  - remote_phone 8y ago
    You mean like painting all of Facebook bad because of a few bad apples?

remote_phone 8y ago

I didn’t delete or edit my comment. I completely understand now what my friends at Uber were saying about the Internet hivemind and especially the HN hivemind. Journalists routinely manipulate their stories to tell the story they want to tell, and right now it’s “Facebook is evil.” You are entitled to your opinion but nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. In a large company there will always be bad apples but to paint an entire company as somehow being a conspiracy is frankly mind boggling. I would love to turn the mirror on all the haters and see how their lives would be if journalists reported manipulated facts on the worst moments of their lives.

ahelwer 8y ago
You should consider learning about more systemic definitions of evil rather than imagining it embodied in some caricature of a human being. Your individual intent matters very little.
- dang 8y ago
  Speaking of systemic effects, please don't pile on this user, or any other individual who happens to be in a position that the majority hates right now. That quickly develops into an ugly dynamic that we don't want here. What you posted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19046964 is unmistakeably a step in that brutal direction. This comment goes for everybody.
blattimwind 8y ago
> You are entitled to your opinion but nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, but there are relatively few cases where there is near-universal agreement of what is or is not ethical (i.e. "ethical" is a value judgment); that's why ethics courses teach methods and structures to argue one way or the other. Your particular case is, I am fairly sure, not one of those "universal agreement" cases. I don't know what exactly you do at Facebook, but a number of people conclude that some or large parts of Facebooks operation are unethical. Additionally, individual conduct in a larger system is generally not pertinent to the outcome of said larger system. An usual example is people in the Manhattan project not knowing that they are working towards offensive nuclear weapons, and of course various examples related to Nazis, but that may not be the best example when you (the recipient) seem to be trapped in a world of absolute ethics.
driverdan 8y ago
Facebook has had countless incidents of violating user privacy and trust. This is just the latest. When a company has the same problems happening over and over across different departments it's clear there's a company-wide problem.
- asark 8y ago
  Even without the definitely-evil incidents that have occurred, simply greedily collecting and then hoarding that much information about people is so grossly and willfully negligent as to qualify. The very basis of everything they do is hopelessly tainted. Yes, that makes an awful lot of other companies—not just tech-first companies—pretty damn evil, too. "Everyone's doing it" and "it's not illegal and is making us money" aren't defenses I accept for this disgusting behavior. [EDIT] that said, piling on people for working at evil companies is probably unproductive and unfair for many of the same reasons that e.g. boycotts are wildly ineffective, plus such a large percentage of the economy's kinda-evil that the whole thing would get confusing and nasty and kinda pointless. Piling on someone for being delusional about whether their employer is evil, though... well, that's an awful lot less unfair.
naikrovek 8y ago
> nothing I or my coworkers do is evil and we would never engage in anything unethical. Don't you see? Everyone who turned out to be evil in the end would have said and felt the exact same way while they were actually doing their evil. People and corporations do the things they do because they feel they have the right to do those things, and that they are justified in doing those things, in virtually all cases. That is the case for people and corporations who, in hindsight, did lots of evil and unethical things as well. In the future that may very well include Facebook. And every last Facebook employee will claim that they had no idea what was going on, and/or that they weren't a part of the "evil side" of Facebook, or whatever they have to say to themselves to maintain the illusion that they did nothing wrong. Your actions alone are not what decide if what you are doing is immoral. If you are in the armed services and you assemble or maintain weaponry designed to kill people (as I did in the US Air Force) then that work is arguably evil and immoral. I feel that what I did was immoral, and at the time I would have laughed at anyone that said turning a torque wrench is immoral. I was doing my job. I was tightening bolts to 100 in/lb and I was putting guidance systems onto test equipment to make sure they worked. I was making sure that those devices would kill when someone set them loose. I definitely did not believe that I was doing anything wrong at the time, and I definitely believe that I was in the wrong today, depending on how those weapons are or will be used. If they are used to sate some evil maniac like our current president then I did immoral work. If they are used to keep peace, then I did not. Weapons are rarely used to keep peace, however. Grenades are not peacekeeping weapons. Scatter bombs are not peacekeeping weapons. Facebook spying on children without consent is not a justifiable action. Facebook working around the language of their agreement with Apple in order to do something forbidden by that agreement is not a justifiable action.
amaccuish 8y ago
> Journalists routinely manipulate their stories to tell the story they want to tell, and right now it’s “Facebook is evil.” Could you point to something that was reported in the main-stream press about a Facebook incident that was untrue?

scarejunba 8y ago

> Going around the terms stated in an agreement to accomplish something forbidden by the agreement is a type of fraud. Fraud is illegal. It’s going to be hard for me to take this seriously on a website where the traditional way to read WSJ and NYT articles is by using services that violate the newspaper ToS. It just sounds like pseudo-sanctimony.

rootusrootus 8y ago
I agree in principle, but you are unfairly painting every person on HN as if they agree with such behavior.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Certainly I find it suspicious if both views are simultaneously upvoted. If you must, read my comment as impugning the integrity of those who actually hold both views. Considering that both the view that TOS are sacrosanct and the view that HN readers should have paywall free access to these news sources are widely popular and have few, if any, detractors, I’m quite comfortable saying what I did.
- remote_phone 8y ago
  You mean like painting all of Facebook bad because of a few bad apples?