4 ms·
They're at the very least substantially misleading, sometimes to the point where I reckon people would have a more accurate view of the world if they didn't rea
by makomk 8y ago
They're at the very least substantially misleading, sometimes to the point where I reckon people would have a more accurate view of the world if they didn't read them. For instance, the one where the New York Times pretended that giving people the ability to use manufacturer-provided smartphone apps to view content their friends shared with them was the same as giving that information to the manufacturer of their smartphone, even when it never left the device: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa...
- untog 8y ago> Facebook allowed the device companies access to the data of users’ friends without their explicit consent, even after declaring that it would no longer share such information with outsiders. Some device makers could retrieve personal information even from users’ friends who believed they had barred any sharing How do you know this information never left the device? Or, given the nature of the FB API, that it used the device at all?