3 ms·

> Facebook is allowing people to grant access to their data to third-parties and Facebook should somehow be faulted for that. It's not clear to me that they sh

by manux 6y ago

> Facebook is allowing people to grant access to their data to third-parties and Facebook should somehow be faulted for that. It's not clear to me that they shouldn't be faulted. How many people read terms and conditions? How many people lack the technological literacy to understand what it means to share their facebook data with third-parties? It seems to me like we should make our systems robust to the average user, especially systems as big as Facebook. > Facebook should not be forced to somehow be the arbiter of this. I kind of agree, but at the same time Facebook has some moral responsibility as the holder of the data. Perhaps it's not on Facebook to implement regulatory mechanisms, but if these mechanisms are implemented (e.g. by the "State") then it should probably be on Facebook's dime.

lupire 6y ago
Reading the EULA and T&C are irrelevant, because what CA did wrong was violate the EULA and T&C. Anyway, You are making an argument for regulations requiring disclosures, like in mortgages and nutrition labels, not an argument that Facebook is at fault for letting users interact with 3rd parties, which could have been a browser extension that scraped the same data that the FB API provides.
- manux 6y ago
  True, but until these regulations exists, I'm not sure why we shouldn't hold Facebook accountable, at least morally -- and in the example you give, why we shouldn't hold browser extension providers accountable.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Why should Facebook be accountable here instead of the party that acted maliciously? Facebook acted as a neutral carrier. Users told them to share their data with CA, and they did. CA lied to both their users and even to Facebook itself (I think they breached FB API's terms and conditions), why should it be Facebook that's at fault? In your argument, if a car is used in a robbery, should the car dealership or manufacturer be also at fault, even though the manufacturer had no idea this particular customer was going to use the car for malicious purposes?
    - manux 6y ago
      If a car has parts that are easily hacked/broken into, leading to injury to its user while the user "chose" to drive, shouldn't the manufacturer be at fault? This is what happened with CA and Facebook's API. I'm not saying CA shouldn't be held accountable, I'm saying Facebook also has part of the blame.
hunter-gatherer 6y ago
> It's not clear to me that they shouldn't be faulted. How many people read terms and conditions? How many people lack the technological literacy to understand what it means to share their facebook data with third-parties? I'm not trying to argue here, but I see this argument pop up often when discussing big tech and user data. I'm curious why the tone is so different when it comes to mortgages or auto loans, for example. It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? To clarify, I'm being sincere, not argumentative. I'm not a normal internet user and never have been. I haven't been on social media for a decade, use all the ad blockers, and so on.
- manux 6y ago
  [Not an expert on this, just my opinion as well] Well, for one afaik mortgages and auto loans are regulated and have been for a long time. They're also simpler to understand for _most_ people, since most people interact with money daily, they see their income, they understand interest, etc. Most people don't need to understand how banks trade mortgages and such because in all likelihood, well except in 2008, it will only affect them marginally. I suspect that most people similarly only have a very superficial functional understanding of data. They see other people's data daily, they understand that if they post something, other people will see it. Where this differs is that, at scale data is not well regulated, and can affect users much more directly and non-marginally, in non-obvious ways. Targeted ads, political manipulation, identity theft, etc.
- BlackFly 6y ago
  Well for one, I expect the bank not to have snuck in a clause that allows them to unilaterally change the contract without providing me with a physical copy thereof. I expect that if the bank tried that that the courts would rule it unconscionable. I expect that if I modify terms in the contract such as typos that the representative will ok them and accept the modification. I expect that they will keep a physical copy of the license or a digital scan thereof so they can track which version I received and whether such modifications were made and to keep track of the witness. I expect the bank to insist on having a translator present since I reside in a land where my proficiency in the language is suspect. I expect that there is a meaningful exchange embodied by the contract and that there is some sense in which I can seek redress if the bank fails to provide the agreed upon funds. If you are sincere, you should compare more people trying to make payday loans illegal with the fight against Facebook's EULA. Banks have always showed much more diligence to receive meaningful consent for a mortgage than Facebook even comes close to. With Payday loans, a predatory lender is trying to rope someone into a contract and then wants to use the courts to extract much more money out of individuals knowing that the individual may be so far in debt that they have no more disposable income. There are many people who would argue that such things should be illegal (or already are) in the same grain as loansharking. Once upon a time people signed contracts whereupon they became slaves or indentured. Clearly not all contractual terms should be honored by a just society. Facebook is seen by some as closer to the predatory lender than a typical mortgage provider. People are free to disagree with where to place the line, but clearly society places the line somewhere on the acceptability of contractual terms.

by manux 6y ago

lupire 6y ago

Reading the EULA and T&C are irrelevant, because what CA did wrong was violate the EULA and T&C. Anyway, You are making an argument for regulations requiring disclosures, like in mortgages and nutrition labels, not an argument that Facebook is at fault for letting users interact with 3rd parties, which could have been a browser extension that scraped the same data that the FB API provides.

manux 6y ago
True, but until these regulations exists, I'm not sure why we shouldn't hold Facebook accountable, at least morally -- and in the example you give, why we shouldn't hold browser extension providers accountable.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Why should Facebook be accountable here instead of the party that acted maliciously? Facebook acted as a neutral carrier. Users told them to share their data with CA, and they did. CA lied to both their users and even to Facebook itself (I think they breached FB API's terms and conditions), why should it be Facebook that's at fault? In your argument, if a car is used in a robbery, should the car dealership or manufacturer be also at fault, even though the manufacturer had no idea this particular customer was going to use the car for malicious purposes?
  - manux 6y ago
    If a car has parts that are easily hacked/broken into, leading to injury to its user while the user "chose" to drive, shouldn't the manufacturer be at fault? This is what happened with CA and Facebook's API. I'm not saying CA shouldn't be held accountable, I'm saying Facebook also has part of the blame.

hunter-gatherer 6y ago

> It's not clear to me that they shouldn't be faulted. How many people read terms and conditions? How many people lack the technological literacy to understand what it means to share their facebook data with third-parties? I'm not trying to argue here, but I see this argument pop up often when discussing big tech and user data. I'm curious why the tone is so different when it comes to mortgages or auto loans, for example. It seems society is content with the notion that I must do my ow due diligence when buying a home, but for whatever reason that responsibility seems to slide away when I'm dealing with social media. Why is that? To clarify, I'm being sincere, not argumentative. I'm not a normal internet user and never have been. I haven't been on social media for a decade, use all the ad blockers, and so on.

manux 6y ago
[Not an expert on this, just my opinion as well] Well, for one afaik mortgages and auto loans are regulated and have been for a long time. They're also simpler to understand for _most_ people, since most people interact with money daily, they see their income, they understand interest, etc. Most people don't need to understand how banks trade mortgages and such because in all likelihood, well except in 2008, it will only affect them marginally. I suspect that most people similarly only have a very superficial functional understanding of data. They see other people's data daily, they understand that if they post something, other people will see it. Where this differs is that, at scale data is not well regulated, and can affect users much more directly and non-marginally, in non-obvious ways. Targeted ads, political manipulation, identity theft, etc.
BlackFly 6y ago
Well for one, I expect the bank not to have snuck in a clause that allows them to unilaterally change the contract without providing me with a physical copy thereof. I expect that if the bank tried that that the courts would rule it unconscionable. I expect that if I modify terms in the contract such as typos that the representative will ok them and accept the modification. I expect that they will keep a physical copy of the license or a digital scan thereof so they can track which version I received and whether such modifications were made and to keep track of the witness. I expect the bank to insist on having a translator present since I reside in a land where my proficiency in the language is suspect. I expect that there is a meaningful exchange embodied by the contract and that there is some sense in which I can seek redress if the bank fails to provide the agreed upon funds. If you are sincere, you should compare more people trying to make payday loans illegal with the fight against Facebook's EULA. Banks have always showed much more diligence to receive meaningful consent for a mortgage than Facebook even comes close to. With Payday loans, a predatory lender is trying to rope someone into a contract and then wants to use the courts to extract much more money out of individuals knowing that the individual may be so far in debt that they have no more disposable income. There are many people who would argue that such things should be illegal (or already are) in the same grain as loansharking. Once upon a time people signed contracts whereupon they became slaves or indentured. Clearly not all contractual terms should be honored by a just society. Facebook is seen by some as closer to the predatory lender than a typical mortgage provider. People are free to disagree with where to place the line, but clearly society places the line somewhere on the acceptability of contractual terms.