5 ms·
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all t
by bitxbit 8y ago
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece.
I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sole network. A lot of people on here (HN) and elsewhere have been repeating those sentiments for years. As naive as it sounds, I simply wish Facebook was not so focused on building its ad platform but rather took on a more custodial role (albeit much less profitable).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cc2zu3 8y agoIf someone wants easy karma, post that Upton Sinclair quote.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- quadrangle 8y agoAs Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
- bunderbunder 8y ago> Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
- pushtheenvelope 8y agoWhat does Cambridge Analytica prove about FB the company? An academic from Cambridge made an app on the FB platform. That gave him access to data which he then sold for commercial purposes. When FB found out, they sent a legal notice to delete this data and cease using it.
- Nasrudith 8y agoCambridge Analytica is ironically totally not a refutation - it was never bought or stolen but abused their shoddy permissions. Against security illiterate users they could get the same thing with just 'login through this for a chance to win a free iPad'.
- jonathanhd 8y agoSelling something poorly and for free is still selling it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cjhopman 8y ago> regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Like gdpr on steroids? I think this would ruin a lot of companies and make a lot of really interesting and useful services no longer possible... but I'm rather curious what it would really mean. I've never seen it proposed by someone who actually recognized what it would mean, though.
- quadrangle 8y agoIt would make entire classes of dangerous but also potentially useful companies illegal. The same way that we don't currently get to experience all the potential that is blocked because of privacy rules around medical records. At the very least, there's been no societal consensus that we want the trade-offs that come from allowing every click, view, email, and contact to be scanned and used for profit in whatever ways companies want. It happened by pure assertion: the companies just did it and did all they could to avoid even letting people actually know so they wouldn't have to ask. Maybe we overall would rather lose all the benefits in order to block the harms and dangers.
- quadrangle 8y agoaddendum: note that by "lose the benefits…" etc. I mean at a social level. It's very distinct to just not have certain businesses exist compared to the self-sacrifice of opting-out personally but still living in a world with these things otherwise. I'd much rather have the status quo (and stronger) around privacy regulations for medical records than live in a world without that but then be one of a few people who forgo use of common medical facilitaties over personal privacy objections.
- avs733 8y agoI see him as among a group of people who believe that financial success gives them both the credibility and authority to dictate the rules of society. It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
- olefoo 8y agoWatch out you are treading perilously close to one of the "things you can't say"[1] in the context of this site. Some people block people on twitter for implying just this sort of thing... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- fnord123 8y ago>Some people block people on twitter Marc Andreesen. olefoo is talking about Marc Andreesen.
- olefoo 8y agoAmong others, perhaps.
- avs733 8y agoWell as someone who (rightly) got their handslapped recently by the downbutton-ers for making arude and snarky post, I'm happy to live in the wisdom of the crowd. There is a difference between a thoughtful opinion that disagrees with conformity and just being snarky about conformists - HN is pretty good about separating. I think this group, amongst all others that I interact with, is critical enough to call a bad faith argument a bad faith argument. However, I think all of us need better training/practice on how to identify bad faith arguments. I see the turn that has been occurring on HN against Elon as one example of that. It may take time but it happens. Compared to other spaces on this here Cyberspace - higher quality and higher s/n ration on argumentation is what keeps me coming back to HN. When people disagree with me here, I actually learn something. Added: My twitter account got blocked because it spent most of it's time autoreplying to people about how the freakonomics podcast became an advertising pitch for the Koch brothers. I only use facebook because my mother prefers it to text. I can't stomach reddit having known the founders as people. My HN account really only exists because someone said a nice thing about a talk I gave - which drew me out of the shadows. I like it here, can I stay? I'll even wear a north face fleece. I drive an EV I promise.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- underwater 8y ago"...indiscriminately selling user data..." That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts. Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not how they make money and is not a core part of the product.