3 ms·

I work for Facebook. Most of internet articles about Facebook is complete trash and over exaggeration. And most HN commenters are paranoids. There are no leak

I work for Facebook. Most of internet articles about Facebook is complete trash and over exaggeration. And most HN commenters are paranoids. There are no leaks because there’s actually nothing to leak. Thousands of engineers routinely perform thousands of experiments on different features (including both UI and data), and there’s no mastermind who designs or even approves all these changes. Sometimes bugs happen, sometimes bug in data handling happen (like tables joined which are not supposed to be joined). Also, I don’t know about Facebook’s significantly slimy practices. Facebook collected my phone number and matched it to something? I don’t care, because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads. I know that Facebook (despite these endless accusations on HN) does not sell data, my credit card won’t be stolen, I won’t get unwanted phone or email spam, and that’s good enough for me.

ahartmetz 7y ago
Besides refuting some maybe overly dramatic criticism, you also have nothing to hide. Why are you using a throwaway account?
- throwaway334488 7y ago
  Company policy (literally almost any company) prohibits talking about the company publicly. Simply because any words can be misinterpreted by bad journalists looking for the next sensation.
  - ahartmetz 7y ago
    So Facebook has something to hide. And you are exercising civil disobedience, which means that you also have something to hide. This argument isn't just sophistry. Think about it.
    - dang 7y ago
      It was fine to ask a sincere question about a throwaway account, but please don't push the point. People shouldn't be hounded for sharing information about situations they know a lot about, such as their employers. We don't want to disincentivize people from showing up to add information, and if they feel a need to create a temporary account to do that with, that's fine. Routinely using throwaways is not fine, though. All this is in the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- lazypenguin 7y ago
  So ironic. Exercises his right to privacy/anonymity but questions those that lament the loss of theirs.
  - throwaway334488 7y ago
    You must be talking about CA again, the issue resolved many years before the first post on HN. That’s because there’s really nothing against FB.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please keep personal swipes out of your comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Snd_ 7y ago
"because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads" -> euphemism of the year.
lawlorino 7y ago
> because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads I guess you could also define this whole scandal as millions of users getting "more interesting ads" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
- throwaway334488 7y ago
  The problem was solved several years before journalists learned about it. When Facebook grew, they started working with data more carefully, that’s it. We discuss it over and over again simply because people have nothing serious to use against the company.
aylmao 7y ago
This actually anecdotally confirms the thread from Alex Stamos I posted about in reply: > There are a couple of big differences between Uber and FB that make whistleblowing less likely, namely 1) a much stronger HR culture and 2) the fact that even internal critics see external criticism as often unfair or incorrect. > [...] > On 2), there is a lot written about FB that is seen as directionally correct but unfair or incorrect in the details. This reduces the trust internal critics have in the external press; nobody wants to leak and have their statements twisted to fit the media's narrative. > Even to internal Cassandras, it is clear that there is a moral panic around Facebook that reduces the pressure in the media to get the story straight. As a result, 20-70% of the details in any story are wrong and that is clear to most employees. > For example, the NY Times has done a number of privacy stories that are directionally correct, in that the proliferation of partnerships and APIs creates a real data protection challenge. > However, sloppy details like the idea that Netflix is reading your Messenger messages or the mixing of real data-sharing with APIs that allow for 3rd-party clients makes it clear to employees that the story is getting mangled. > Likewise, the discussion of Myanmar. This is a spectacularly complicated situation that a lot of Facebook employees feel sick to their stomachs about. But there isn't a clean issue to blow the whistle on nor does the external discussion encourage FBers to participate. > [...] > The media portrayal of the situation as simple or FB as not caring does not match up to the experience of the hundreds of people working on this problem, which makes it much less likely that they will talk to the press. > This doesn't mean the media should go easy on FB, but if you portray mistakes as intentional decisions made for the most venal of reasons, then don't be surprised when the actual people working on these problems don't DM you for your Signal. [1]: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1185954967086981125 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1185954967086981125

ahartmetz 7y ago

Besides refuting some maybe overly dramatic criticism, you also have nothing to hide. Why are you using a throwaway account?

throwaway334488 7y ago
Company policy (literally almost any company) prohibits talking about the company publicly. Simply because any words can be misinterpreted by bad journalists looking for the next sensation.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  So Facebook has something to hide. And you are exercising civil disobedience, which means that you also have something to hide. This argument isn't just sophistry. Think about it.
  - dang 7y ago
    It was fine to ask a sincere question about a throwaway account, but please don't push the point. People shouldn't be hounded for sharing information about situations they know a lot about, such as their employers. We don't want to disincentivize people from showing up to add information, and if they feel a need to create a temporary account to do that with, that's fine. Routinely using throwaways is not fine, though. All this is in the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
lazypenguin 7y ago
So ironic. Exercises his right to privacy/anonymity but questions those that lament the loss of theirs.
- throwaway334488 7y ago
  You must be talking about CA again, the issue resolved many years before the first post on HN. That’s because there’s really nothing against FB.
- dang 7y ago
  Please keep personal swipes out of your comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Snd_ 7y ago

"because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads" -> euphemism of the year.

lawlorino 7y ago

> because the worst can happen is I will get more interesting ads I guess you could also define this whole scandal as millions of users getting "more interesting ads" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

throwaway334488 7y ago
The problem was solved several years before journalists learned about it. When Facebook grew, they started working with data more carefully, that’s it. We discuss it over and over again simply because people have nothing serious to use against the company.

aylmao 7y ago

This actually anecdotally confirms the thread from Alex Stamos I posted about in reply: > There are a couple of big differences between Uber and FB that make whistleblowing less likely, namely 1) a much stronger HR culture and 2) the fact that even internal critics see external criticism as often unfair or incorrect. > [...] > On 2), there is a lot written about FB that is seen as directionally correct but unfair or incorrect in the details. This reduces the trust internal critics have in the external press; nobody wants to leak and have their statements twisted to fit the media's narrative. > Even to internal Cassandras, it is clear that there is a moral panic around Facebook that reduces the pressure in the media to get the story straight. As a result, 20-70% of the details in any story are wrong and that is clear to most employees. > For example, the NY Times has done a number of privacy stories that are directionally correct, in that the proliferation of partnerships and APIs creates a real data protection challenge. > However, sloppy details like the idea that Netflix is reading your Messenger messages or the mixing of real data-sharing with APIs that allow for 3rd-party clients makes it clear to employees that the story is getting mangled. > Likewise, the discussion of Myanmar. This is a spectacularly complicated situation that a lot of Facebook employees feel sick to their stomachs about. But there isn't a clean issue to blow the whistle on nor does the external discussion encourage FBers to participate. > [...] > The media portrayal of the situation as simple or FB as not caring does not match up to the experience of the hundreds of people working on this problem, which makes it much less likely that they will talk to the press. > This doesn't mean the media should go easy on FB, but if you portray mistakes as intentional decisions made for the most venal of reasons, then don't be surprised when the actual people working on these problems don't DM you for your Signal. [1]: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1185954967086981125 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1185954967086981125