5 ms·

You're talking about 3 things. 1: whether or not the leak is selective, we don't know. Given it was a sealed doc in a lawsuit vault, it might not be that selec

by pmlnr 7y ago

You're talking about 3 things. 1: whether or not the leak is selective, we don't know. Given it was a sealed doc in a lawsuit vault, it might not be that selective, and it very much looks like they may not even be the people who leaked it. 2: the morality of the app was never the topic. 3: Facebook has been doing switch & bait for too many years, even with one's own data. See https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ https://ruben.verborgh.org/facebook/ for more details on this. It's the same story as Twitter: yes, come, develop apps, spread our influence, then board up all the resources. This needs to stop, both from an anti-trust perspective and with developer awareness.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
What you call a bait and switch, I would argue is an honest lesson the industry has learned. Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. We don't know for sure whether the leak is selective, but Facebook claims it is. The morality of the plaintiffs seems very relevant to evaluating whether you believe that.
- pmlnr 7y ago
  > We don't know for sure whether the leak is selective, but Facebook claims it is. Well then, all they need to do is leak more :)
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I'd sure like to see more leaks, but I'm sure you understand why it's unfair to expect a company that has its documents stolen to respond by publishing a bunch more of them.
    - pmlnr 7y ago
      I kind of like transparency, so no. Facebook lied enough, and if those lies will only get out by leaks, so be it.
- d0ne 7y ago
  Wouldn’t say “Nobody”. It was obvious to enough folks in the privacy and security sectors. Facebook, along with others in that space, received view points from some of those concerned but made the decision to proceed as they did.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The privacy and security sectors are pretty consistently aware of ways things can go wrong. But they were overwhelmed at the time by the popular consensus, that openness is super important and it's terrible that social networking companies don't have more of it. Remember when Tim Berners-Lee criticized Facebook for not putting all your data on the public web? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8151101/tTim-Berners-Lee-criticises-Facebooks-walled-garden.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8151101/tTim...)
    - Andrex 7y ago
      Did you read the article you linked? You have a very uncharitable interpretation of Sir Berners-Lee's comments. He's railing against walled gardens being poor stewards of user data and having nonexistent data portability (as well as telcos violating net neutrality.) Relevant then and even more relevant now. I see nothing about him wanting Facebook to enforce publicly-published profile data.
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        I’m not trying to pick on the guy. My memory is that this simply isn’t what data portability meant in 2010; data portability was widely understood to mean that there should be a public API to access any resources the Facebook web app will serve me. (Note how the article ties this into calls for Facebook to open up the social graph API.)
- vkou 7y ago
  > Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. Actually, both normies and hackers were super concerned about this Facebook thing, and whether or not people were putting too much personal information on the internet. Young adults - the early adopter demographic - didn't care though, because many of them weren't thinking much past boose, parties, and sex. And, thanks to network effects, you rather needed Facebook, if you didn't want to be a social pariah at your school. Since the sky did not fall in an obvious way, eventually, their parents started using it, too.
- devicetray0 7y ago
  > Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. Well the article linked is from January 2019, not "the early days". It's about a GDPR request that Facebook is/was avoiding answering.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I was mostly responding to the points in the comment. That linked article... I dunno, it's not obvious to me what more the guy wants or why he thinks Facebook has to provide it.
- some1else 7y ago
  An app I made in 2014 that scraped the entirety of information available through the Graph API (things like conversations and where your friends party), and printed it into a spooky NSA style booklet: https://github.com/some1else/Edentity https://github.com/some1else/Edentity
rksgs 7y ago
So Facebook must allow easy access to data through an API (because users have a right to their data, etc), but at the same time, they must not allow easy access to data through an API (because developers will exploit that, Cambridge Analytica, etc). Facebook is held to what basically is a double standard. They simply cannot win. I can understand Zuck's apathy.

by pmlnr 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

What you call a bait and switch, I would argue is an honest lesson the industry has learned. Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. We don't know for sure whether the leak is selective, but Facebook claims it is. The morality of the plaintiffs seems very relevant to evaluating whether you believe that.

pmlnr 7y ago
> We don't know for sure whether the leak is selective, but Facebook claims it is. Well then, all they need to do is leak more :)
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I'd sure like to see more leaks, but I'm sure you understand why it's unfair to expect a company that has its documents stolen to respond by publishing a bunch more of them.
  - pmlnr 7y ago
    I kind of like transparency, so no. Facebook lied enough, and if those lies will only get out by leaks, so be it.
d0ne 7y ago
Wouldn’t say “Nobody”. It was obvious to enough folks in the privacy and security sectors. Facebook, along with others in that space, received view points from some of those concerned but made the decision to proceed as they did.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The privacy and security sectors are pretty consistently aware of ways things can go wrong. But they were overwhelmed at the time by the popular consensus, that openness is super important and it's terrible that social networking companies don't have more of it. Remember when Tim Berners-Lee criticized Facebook for not putting all your data on the public web? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8151101/tTim-Berners-Lee-criticises-Facebooks-walled-garden.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8151101/tTim...)
  - Andrex 7y ago
    Did you read the article you linked? You have a very uncharitable interpretation of Sir Berners-Lee's comments. He's railing against walled gardens being poor stewards of user data and having nonexistent data portability (as well as telcos violating net neutrality.) Relevant then and even more relevant now. I see nothing about him wanting Facebook to enforce publicly-published profile data.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I’m not trying to pick on the guy. My memory is that this simply isn’t what data portability meant in 2010; data portability was widely understood to mean that there should be a public API to access any resources the Facebook web app will serve me. (Note how the article ties this into calls for Facebook to open up the social graph API.)
vkou 7y ago
> Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. Actually, both normies and hackers were super concerned about this Facebook thing, and whether or not people were putting too much personal information on the internet. Young adults - the early adopter demographic - didn't care though, because many of them weren't thinking much past boose, parties, and sex. And, thanks to network effects, you rather needed Facebook, if you didn't want to be a social pariah at your school. Since the sky did not fall in an obvious way, eventually, their parents started using it, too.
devicetray0 7y ago
> Nobody realized, in the early days, just how easy it was to abuse a social network API. Well the article linked is from January 2019, not "the early days". It's about a GDPR request that Facebook is/was avoiding answering.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I was mostly responding to the points in the comment. That linked article... I dunno, it's not obvious to me what more the guy wants or why he thinks Facebook has to provide it.
some1else 7y ago
An app I made in 2014 that scraped the entirety of information available through the Graph API (things like conversations and where your friends party), and printed it into a spooky NSA style booklet: https://github.com/some1else/Edentity https://github.com/some1else/Edentity

rksgs 7y ago

So Facebook must allow easy access to data through an API (because users have a right to their data, etc), but at the same time, they must not allow easy access to data through an API (because developers will exploit that, Cambridge Analytica, etc). Facebook is held to what basically is a double standard. They simply cannot win. I can understand Zuck's apathy.