3 ms·

I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. And more pertinently, there’s no pl

I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. And more pertinently, there’s no plans to fix it for him specifically just because he’s the CEO. It’s better to spend time making the account compromise system better for the vast majority of users instead.

smsm42 5y ago
The problem is not account compromise. Nobody is complaining about inability to compromise Zuckerberg's account or it being to hard to register a new device or anything like that. The issue is question is the two-tier (or maybe multiple-tier) system of rules that secretly exists inside Facebook while the public materials falsely claim all users are guided by the same rules.
elmomle 5y ago
Or perhaps the underlying business/product model is inherently flawed in a way that's bad for society, all patches have proven woefully insufficient in mitigating that, and Facebook have been intentionally concealing this.
IncRnd 5y ago
> I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. That's not what the article mentioned, which is why people are saying you don't seem to understand. The article mentioned there is a system, which does work for a small minority of people, not that it doesn't work for them. It's as if you unintentionally have blinders on and can't see the issue.
SamBam 5y ago
It is tone-deaf. You seem to be regaling it as an inconvenience or problem that Zuckerburg has. It's not an inconvenience, it's a personal bodyguard that he alone has. If he changes devices, he has a team to allow him to log into it. How is that relevant? The rest of us don't get that. If someone hacks our account and changes our password, the majority of us have little hope of really getting FB's attention to help us fix it. The point about popular accounts getting 10000x the number of abuse reports is much more relevant.
- Closi 5y ago
  It's relevant because it's an example of where an account needs special rules/treatment because of the status. It's saying "Do we all agree that some accounts, such as Zuck's, might need different treatment?" Because once you have established that, it's clear why some other accounts might need different/special treatment compared to the typical user.
- dado3212 5y ago
  The point isn’t that he gets special protection for logging on on new devices, it’s that he receives thousands of fake login attempts a day. It’s basically the same point: 10000x the number of abuse reports be 10000x the number of login attempts.

smsm42 5y ago

The problem is not account compromise. Nobody is complaining about inability to compromise Zuckerberg's account or it being to hard to register a new device or anything like that. The issue is question is the two-tier (or maybe multiple-tier) system of rules that secretly exists inside Facebook while the public materials falsely claim all users are guided by the same rules.

elmomle 5y ago

Or perhaps the underlying business/product model is inherently flawed in a way that's bad for society, all patches have proven woefully insufficient in mitigating that, and Facebook have been intentionally concealing this.

IncRnd 5y ago

> I think it’s valid because it’s an example of a system not working for a small minority while still working well for others. That's not what the article mentioned, which is why people are saying you don't seem to understand. The article mentioned there is a system, which does work for a small minority of people, not that it doesn't work for them. It's as if you unintentionally have blinders on and can't see the issue.

SamBam 5y ago

It is tone-deaf. You seem to be regaling it as an inconvenience or problem that Zuckerburg has. It's not an inconvenience, it's a personal bodyguard that he alone has. If he changes devices, he has a team to allow him to log into it. How is that relevant? The rest of us don't get that. If someone hacks our account and changes our password, the majority of us have little hope of really getting FB's attention to help us fix it. The point about popular accounts getting 10000x the number of abuse reports is much more relevant.

Closi 5y ago
It's relevant because it's an example of where an account needs special rules/treatment because of the status. It's saying "Do we all agree that some accounts, such as Zuck's, might need different treatment?" Because once you have established that, it's clear why some other accounts might need different/special treatment compared to the typical user.
dado3212 5y ago
The point isn’t that he gets special protection for logging on on new devices, it’s that he receives thousands of fake login attempts a day. It’s basically the same point: 10000x the number of abuse reports be 10000x the number of login attempts.