4 ms·

The unasked question in this article isn't whether Facebook really has changed its views on privacy, it's how you'll know if they have. Rather than addressing t

The unasked question in this article isn't whether Facebook really has changed its views on privacy, it's how you'll know if they have. Rather than addressing that the article simply assumes they're lying and bashes them for prior bad behavior. I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish besides catharsis.

NetOpWibby 8y ago
That's a valid point, thanks for the feedback.
- munk-a 8y ago
  At the same time I feel like the ball is in their court at this point to prove themselves. Requesting proof in criticisms feels like a weird kind of sealioning.
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    TIL a new word! You also have a point and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't the first time a rep from the company has written a public essay loosely detailing the ways FB will be better and it won't be the last.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    I didn't ask for proof, and I think it's reasonable to demand a lot of evidence before you believe it when someone tells you they've changed. What bothers me here is that there's no articulation of that standard, just a rejection of the idea that a public statement is sufficient. To make it more concrete: let's say that Facebook ended all of the practices the author objects to, but told no one. Clearly the author would not endorse Facebook. Taking that a step further, the author clearly is not convinced by Facebook's public statements. So if Facebook ended all of those practices and then put out a public statement to that effect, the author would likely not endorse Facebook. What's next after that? How do they prove trustworthiness? I don't know. I'll bet Facebook doesn't either, and that's a bad outcome because now they have no incentive to actually improve.
    - NetOpWibby 8y ago
      They absolutely have incentive to improve, regardless of what I think. They have a lot of work to do.
      - debatem1 8y ago
        If no one believes that they've improved I actually don't think they do have an incentive; what do you perceive that to be? To put it another way, if they will be penalized for being insecure either way, why spend the money to be secure?
        NetOpWibby 8y ago
        Because it's the right thing to do. Maybe I'm just being naïve.
        debatem1 8y ago
        I mean, that's nice but it's not an incentive. If you assume, as the author apparently does, that Facebook is at least motivated to have you believe that they're secure, telling them you won't no matter what they say is counterproductive.

NetOpWibby 8y ago

That's a valid point, thanks for the feedback.

munk-a 8y ago
At the same time I feel like the ball is in their court at this point to prove themselves. Requesting proof in criticisms feels like a weird kind of sealioning.
- NetOpWibby 8y ago
  TIL a new word! You also have a point and I'm inclined to agree. This isn't the first time a rep from the company has written a public essay loosely detailing the ways FB will be better and it won't be the last.
- debatem1 8y ago
  I didn't ask for proof, and I think it's reasonable to demand a lot of evidence before you believe it when someone tells you they've changed. What bothers me here is that there's no articulation of that standard, just a rejection of the idea that a public statement is sufficient. To make it more concrete: let's say that Facebook ended all of the practices the author objects to, but told no one. Clearly the author would not endorse Facebook. Taking that a step further, the author clearly is not convinced by Facebook's public statements. So if Facebook ended all of those practices and then put out a public statement to that effect, the author would likely not endorse Facebook. What's next after that? How do they prove trustworthiness? I don't know. I'll bet Facebook doesn't either, and that's a bad outcome because now they have no incentive to actually improve.
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    They absolutely have incentive to improve, regardless of what I think. They have a lot of work to do.
    - debatem1 8y ago
      If no one believes that they've improved I actually don't think they do have an incentive; what do you perceive that to be? To put it another way, if they will be penalized for being insecure either way, why spend the money to be secure?
      - NetOpWibby 8y ago
        Because it's the right thing to do. Maybe I'm just being naïve.
        debatem1 8y ago
        I mean, that's nice but it's not an incentive. If you assume, as the author apparently does, that Facebook is at least motivated to have you believe that they're secure, telling them you won't no matter what they say is counterproductive.