3 ms·

But it is too high risk that these extensions will share something else like friend list or phone numbers. Even if extension authors have honest intentions (we

But it is too high risk that these extensions will share something else like friend list or phone numbers. Even if extension authors have honest intentions (we cannot verify that), we cannot trust their account and the extension itself won't be hacked and extension replaced with something else. And if that happens everybody will forget these newspaper analogies and will go straight to blaming Facebook. No, it is in everybody's best interest (except these researchers) not to have this extension.

cronix 5y ago
You mean after FB has already shared your friends list and phone numbers? And tracked you and your friends, most if not all of who did not give you permission to give FB their private contact info, all over the web?
- ergocoder 5y ago
  I see. Since they have shared it with Cambridge Analytica, therefore, they must share with every single group that asks? That just doesn't make sense. I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since guardian isn't exactly great either.
  - cronix 5y ago
    Not what I said. Did your friends and family give you specific permission to give FB their private contact info, which FB uses to associate private relationships whether they are on FB or not and track people across the web? Nothing to do with Cambridge or anyone else I didn't mention.
    - ergocoder 5y ago
      So, your comment has nothing to do with the current topic them? Yeah, a lot of people give that permission. It is in the user agreement. Not that I agree with wide user agreement, but I'm sure user agreement covers that part, arguably. Yes, arguably, your friends are rightfully allowed to share your private info like phone numbers and photos. Because they have access to those information. Not that I agree with it, it is just the current state we live in.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since guardian isn't exactly great either. The Guardian has nothing to do with Ad Observer and the research it is used for. They simply ran the article written by the NYU researchers that Facebook banned.
    - ergocoder 5y ago
      Why did they choose to run it on a shady newspaper though? There are at least 10 other more credible newspapers to choose from.

cronix 5y ago

You mean after FB has already shared your friends list and phone numbers? And tracked you and your friends, most if not all of who did not give you permission to give FB their private contact info, all over the web?

ergocoder 5y ago
I see. Since they have shared it with Cambridge Analytica, therefore, they must share with every single group that asks? That just doesn't make sense. I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since guardian isn't exactly great either.
- cronix 5y ago
  Not what I said. Did your friends and family give you specific permission to give FB their private contact info, which FB uses to associate private relationships whether they are on FB or not and track people across the web? Nothing to do with Cambridge or anyone else I didn't mention.
  - ergocoder 5y ago
    So, your comment has nothing to do with the current topic them? Yeah, a lot of people give that permission. It is in the user agreement. Not that I agree with wide user agreement, but I'm sure user agreement covers that part, arguably. Yes, arguably, your friends are rightfully allowed to share your private info like phone numbers and photos. Because they have access to those information. Not that I agree with it, it is just the current state we live in.
- tzs 5y ago
  > I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since guardian isn't exactly great either. The Guardian has nothing to do with Ad Observer and the research it is used for. They simply ran the article written by the NYU researchers that Facebook banned.
  - ergocoder 5y ago
    Why did they choose to run it on a shady newspaper though? There are at least 10 other more credible newspapers to choose from.