3 ms·

Why? What level of criticism is acceptable, and what level is not, and why? This is something I've not really been able to understand about those who defend Fa

by untog 8y ago

Why? What level of criticism is acceptable, and what level is not, and why? This is something I've not really been able to understand about those who defend Facebook against these "attacks". Nothing reported (AFAIK) has been untrue. Facebook is one of the richest and most culturally central companies of the 21st century. It seems fair game to examine what they do.

o10449366 8y ago
Significant portions of NYT's reporting have been highly misleading, to the extent that it's difficult to conclude it wasn't intentional. "Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages." [0] Netflix and Spotify have Messenger plugins that allow you to share movie trailers and songs from directly within the Messenger app. Spotify's desktop app also used to connect with Messenger to enable similar functionality. NYT equated having standard "read/write" permissions necessary for basic app functionality with Netflix and Spotify being able to access, store, and modify all of your private messages. Read the comments on that article and any prior discussion of it on the internet and you'll see that many technology illiterate people misinterpreted what that meant. Also, it's fair game to examine what Facebook has been doing, but it's also fair game to examine what NYT's motives are for scrutinizing them so closely. When Google, Twitter, Equifax, and others have been largely ignored one naturally begins to wonder if there's an underlying agenda at play. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...
- noelsusman 8y ago
  I'm confused. Netflix and Spotify did have the ability to read anyone's private messages. That's what they reported, and as far as I know none of the involved parties disputed that. The point isn't that somebody at Spotify was sitting there reading everyone's messages. The point is that they could have been doing that, and Facebook had nothing in place to know if they were doing that, and none of the users sharing a song with friends would think that doing so would enable them to do that, and such extensive privileges were not necessary to implement a simple sharing feature.
  - MrOwen 8y ago
    Without regulatory oversight and third party auditing of certified access logs, you can't really be sure what was or was not accessed. Of course, if you imposed those kind of requirements on Facebook, that would take a significant amount of resources and therefore reduce their profit margins. Probably not very investor-friendly.
  - bryan_w 8y ago
    If you read up on FBs response, it's clear that only people who signed into those sites with Facebook would have given Netflix and spotify access to PMs. The user would have to agree to a permission dialog at least before the companies would have access.
malvosenior 8y ago
My problem is that there is plenty of legitimate things to criticize about Facebook but the media manufactures their own issues and agenda and applies them. I don't know anyone who was or quite frankly is concerned about privacy on FB. I don't think the "Russian ads" had any effectiveness on US politics. The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" was allowing friends lists to be public via the API (something everyone did back then). But when you look a the NYT and other mainstream media coverage, it's 100% Russians, "hacks", privacy... What do I see as the real issue with FB (and Instagram in particular)? It rots people's brains out. It's like crack. I know multiple people spending their life savings to travel the globe for the perfect Instagram shot. I know many, many relationships that have been utterly destroyed by Facebook. Turns out staying connected to all of your ex-partners on a social network kinda makes it hard to get into new relationships. Facebook has been an absolute blight on humanity, just not for the reasons the mass media tells you.

by untog 8y ago

o10449366 8y ago

Significant portions of NYT's reporting have been highly misleading, to the extent that it's difficult to conclude it wasn't intentional. "Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages." [0] Netflix and Spotify have Messenger plugins that allow you to share movie trailers and songs from directly within the Messenger app. Spotify's desktop app also used to connect with Messenger to enable similar functionality. NYT equated having standard "read/write" permissions necessary for basic app functionality with Netflix and Spotify being able to access, store, and modify all of your private messages. Read the comments on that article and any prior discussion of it on the internet and you'll see that many technology illiterate people misinterpreted what that meant. Also, it's fair game to examine what Facebook has been doing, but it's also fair game to examine what NYT's motives are for scrutinizing them so closely. When Google, Twitter, Equifax, and others have been largely ignored one naturally begins to wonder if there's an underlying agenda at play. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva...

noelsusman 8y ago
I'm confused. Netflix and Spotify did have the ability to read anyone's private messages. That's what they reported, and as far as I know none of the involved parties disputed that. The point isn't that somebody at Spotify was sitting there reading everyone's messages. The point is that they could have been doing that, and Facebook had nothing in place to know if they were doing that, and none of the users sharing a song with friends would think that doing so would enable them to do that, and such extensive privileges were not necessary to implement a simple sharing feature.
- MrOwen 8y ago
  Without regulatory oversight and third party auditing of certified access logs, you can't really be sure what was or was not accessed. Of course, if you imposed those kind of requirements on Facebook, that would take a significant amount of resources and therefore reduce their profit margins. Probably not very investor-friendly.
- bryan_w 8y ago
  If you read up on FBs response, it's clear that only people who signed into those sites with Facebook would have given Netflix and spotify access to PMs. The user would have to agree to a permission dialog at least before the companies would have access.

malvosenior 8y ago

My problem is that there is plenty of legitimate things to criticize about Facebook but the media manufactures their own issues and agenda and applies them. I don't know anyone who was or quite frankly is concerned about privacy on FB. I don't think the "Russian ads" had any effectiveness on US politics. The Cambridge Analytica "scandal" was allowing friends lists to be public via the API (something everyone did back then). But when you look a the NYT and other mainstream media coverage, it's 100% Russians, "hacks", privacy... What do I see as the real issue with FB (and Instagram in particular)? It rots people's brains out. It's like crack. I know multiple people spending their life savings to travel the globe for the perfect Instagram shot. I know many, many relationships that have been utterly destroyed by Facebook. Turns out staying connected to all of your ex-partners on a social network kinda makes it hard to get into new relationships. Facebook has been an absolute blight on humanity, just not for the reasons the mass media tells you.