6 ms·

Now do the same for CNN, Fox News and every other sophisticated media company who have all created Skinner boxes to get more eyeballs. The entire system needs a

Now do the same for CNN, Fox News and every other sophisticated media company who have all created Skinner boxes to get more eyeballs. The entire system needs a hard examination.

q1w2 5y ago
I suspect the reaction from a lot of companies is going to be to lock down internal documents under a need-to-know security model.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  And greatly reduce their efficiency
- amoshi 5y ago
  That's pretty much what happened after Snowden, everything is much more locked down, access is tightly controlled and employees are more closely monitored. That's why I'm glad he released as much as he did, any followup whistle-blower leak is bound to be much much harder.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    That also happened somewhat under Sabanes-Oxley and HIPAA. Documents that might have once sat in an unlocked filing cabinet are now locked in vaults.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  That helps the public good too.
- colpabar 5y ago
  My tinfoil theory about the outage yesterday is that it was done on purpose, as a way to create an opportunity to "hide" as many internal documents as possible without anyone noticing.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    First reaction: That really is tinfoil, if you don't include how the outage would help in that process.. Second reaction: Huh, employees were locked out of their offices, VPN was surely down, yeah if there was someone inside the data centre deleting files off their Intranet no one from outside the data centre would be able to notice, due to the lack of connectivity. But it would have to be a very good scrubbing and people would notice things missing anyway, "Hey wasn't there used to be a PDF here..?". Hah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
    - lrem 5y ago
      Man, you could delete random 200 documents I worked on at least 3 months ago and I would only notice if I followed a broken link...
- CosmicShadow 5y ago
  Easier said than done though. My wife works for a massive company that now makes you classify every email as external, internal, or confidential and after numerous emails, training and constantly calling people out on things, nobody can still figure out the difference (and thus marks everything far less secure than it is), despite it being trivial.
- fullshark 5y ago
  Well if the precedent from this is any employee can leak whatever they want, violating their NDA and claim the company is committing securities fraud by having secrets why wouldn't they?
5faulker 5y ago
The system's imploding.
- RobRivera 5y ago
  i disagree
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
the_snooze 5y ago
This is straight-up deflection. It makes sense to start somewhere, so why not the biggest player in town? That would be Facebook, with billions of active users. None of those cable channels are even close to 100s of millions of viewers.
- fullshark 5y ago
  Considering the claim that FB committed securities fraud based on the evidence we've seen so far is pretty laughable, it appears her testimony is designed to encourage new laws and regulations for (social in particular) media companies. As such a conversation about the industry at large and its practices makes sense.
- justicezyx 5y ago
  No, calling out more fundamental and broker problem is the first step to address the root problem. Otherwise, you are just whacking moles, and pretending that one day there would be no more moles... Or rather, you indeed are OK with a constant number of moles indefinitely. That's OK. But the premise of the parent is obviously that the moles are growing too numerous and are not staying constant at all...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  I mean, I think this should be an 'and' thing, not an 'or' thing. Don't deflect from FB. But when FB's dirty laundry is aired, air these other groups' too.
  - asdff 5y ago
    Easier to set a precedent against one org and use that to enforce good behavior towards other orgs in the future. It's how we've always gone after corrupted industries in this country. If you go after every bad egg at once you aren't going to win.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      I don't think we're disagreeing.
afavour 5y ago
Oh come on, they’re not comparable. If you turn on CNN or Fox News right now I know exactly what you’ll see. Because it’s exactly what I’d see if did the same. What’s on your Facebook feed right now? No clue. How are different types of content weighted? No way of knowing. Facebook holds a lot more secrets than any traditional media company about what they’re showing their users. Leaks from FB are much more valuable.
- jasondigitized 5y ago
  What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using different methods based on the data they have available which comes from focus groups, Nielsen, and a whole cottage industry that most people are unaware of.
  - afavour 5y ago
    > What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. Right, but we know what they are showing people. We have no idea what Facebook is showing people. There's no equivalence there. Yes, both are bad, but in the context of these leaks equating Facebook to CNN is delusional deflection.
    - jasondigitized 5y ago
      It’s not deflection. You are pointing out magnification. It’s the same concept. Facebook just has far greater granularity in their ability to target and deliver personalized content. CNN and Fox News is still segmenting content and targeting users. That’s why they can both coexist. I am not arguing that Facebook isn’t far more sophisticated. Newspapers < CNN < CNN.com < Facebook.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible to do with Facebook, unless you are Facebook. Every users' "news" feed is slightly different based on their behavior/relationships tracked on Facebook and through their massive advertising network (off Facebook). I put "news" in quotes because Facebook tunes the contents of their feeds for monitization rather than any semblance of truth or accuracy. Facebook is awash in literal fake news, as in completely made up "news" articles, because they peak in some engagement metric. An actual news program on cable or non-opinion news article in a paper can't get away with outright lies. They also would be liable for outright defamation. For all the ills and failings of cable news and newspapers they are nowhere near as toxic or fundamentally broken as Facebook's "news" feeds. They're not even in the same ballpark which makes your whataboutism really puzzling. Do you honestly not see the difference?
unsui 5y ago
whataboutism... those deserve their own attention on their own merits. But not directly relevant to this discussion, particularly if it defers or interferes with the FB discussion specifically.

Now do the same for CNN, Fox News and every other sophisticated media company who have all created Skinner boxes to get more eyeballs. The entire system needs a hard examination.

q1w2 5y ago

I suspect the reaction from a lot of companies is going to be to lock down internal documents under a need-to-know security model.

throwaway6734 5y ago
And greatly reduce their efficiency
amoshi 5y ago
That's pretty much what happened after Snowden, everything is much more locked down, access is tightly controlled and employees are more closely monitored. That's why I'm glad he released as much as he did, any followup whistle-blower leak is bound to be much much harder.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  That also happened somewhat under Sabanes-Oxley and HIPAA. Documents that might have once sat in an unlocked filing cabinet are now locked in vaults.
daniel-cussen 5y ago
That helps the public good too.
colpabar 5y ago
My tinfoil theory about the outage yesterday is that it was done on purpose, as a way to create an opportunity to "hide" as many internal documents as possible without anyone noticing.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  First reaction: That really is tinfoil, if you don't include how the outage would help in that process.. Second reaction: Huh, employees were locked out of their offices, VPN was surely down, yeah if there was someone inside the data centre deleting files off their Intranet no one from outside the data centre would be able to notice, due to the lack of connectivity. But it would have to be a very good scrubbing and people would notice things missing anyway, "Hey wasn't there used to be a PDF here..?". Hah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
  - lrem 5y ago
    Man, you could delete random 200 documents I worked on at least 3 months ago and I would only notice if I followed a broken link...
CosmicShadow 5y ago
Easier said than done though. My wife works for a massive company that now makes you classify every email as external, internal, or confidential and after numerous emails, training and constantly calling people out on things, nobody can still figure out the difference (and thus marks everything far less secure than it is), despite it being trivial.
fullshark 5y ago
Well if the precedent from this is any employee can leak whatever they want, violating their NDA and claim the company is committing securities fraud by having secrets why wouldn't they?

5faulker 5y ago

The system's imploding.

RobRivera 5y ago
i disagree

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

the_snooze 5y ago

This is straight-up deflection. It makes sense to start somewhere, so why not the biggest player in town? That would be Facebook, with billions of active users. None of those cable channels are even close to 100s of millions of viewers.

fullshark 5y ago
Considering the claim that FB committed securities fraud based on the evidence we've seen so far is pretty laughable, it appears her testimony is designed to encourage new laws and regulations for (social in particular) media companies. As such a conversation about the industry at large and its practices makes sense.
justicezyx 5y ago
No, calling out more fundamental and broker problem is the first step to address the root problem. Otherwise, you are just whacking moles, and pretending that one day there would be no more moles... Or rather, you indeed are OK with a constant number of moles indefinitely. That's OK. But the premise of the parent is obviously that the moles are growing too numerous and are not staying constant at all...
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I mean, I think this should be an 'and' thing, not an 'or' thing. Don't deflect from FB. But when FB's dirty laundry is aired, air these other groups' too.
- asdff 5y ago
  Easier to set a precedent against one org and use that to enforce good behavior towards other orgs in the future. It's how we've always gone after corrupted industries in this country. If you go after every bad egg at once you aren't going to win.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    I don't think we're disagreeing.

afavour 5y ago

Oh come on, they’re not comparable. If you turn on CNN or Fox News right now I know exactly what you’ll see. Because it’s exactly what I’d see if did the same. What’s on your Facebook feed right now? No clue. How are different types of content weighted? No way of knowing. Facebook holds a lot more secrets than any traditional media company about what they’re showing their users. Leaks from FB are much more valuable.

jasondigitized 5y ago
What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. CNN and Fox News are just using different methods based on the data they have available which comes from focus groups, Nielsen, and a whole cottage industry that most people are unaware of.
- afavour 5y ago
  > What will you see? 24-7, Emotionally charged "Breaking News" which is simply a different fruit from the same horrible tree. Right, but we know what they are showing people. We have no idea what Facebook is showing people. There's no equivalence there. Yes, both are bad, but in the context of these leaks equating Facebook to CNN is delusional deflection.
  - jasondigitized 5y ago
    It’s not deflection. You are pointing out magnification. It’s the same concept. Facebook just has far greater granularity in their ability to target and deliver personalized content. CNN and Fox News is still segmenting content and targeting users. That’s why they can both coexist. I am not arguing that Facebook isn’t far more sophisticated. Newspapers < CNN < CNN.com < Facebook.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  You're doubling down on your whataboutism and deflection. The key difference between Facebook's "news" feed any mainstream television and print news is visibility. If I record every minute of cable news and subscribe to a bunch of newspapers I can tell you the exact contents of each. If any of them wants to espouse a narrative it's pretty easy to see just by looking at what they've aired/printed. That's not possible to do with Facebook, unless you are Facebook. Every users' "news" feed is slightly different based on their behavior/relationships tracked on Facebook and through their massive advertising network (off Facebook). I put "news" in quotes because Facebook tunes the contents of their feeds for monitization rather than any semblance of truth or accuracy. Facebook is awash in literal fake news, as in completely made up "news" articles, because they peak in some engagement metric. An actual news program on cable or non-opinion news article in a paper can't get away with outright lies. They also would be liable for outright defamation. For all the ills and failings of cable news and newspapers they are nowhere near as toxic or fundamentally broken as Facebook's "news" feeds. They're not even in the same ballpark which makes your whataboutism really puzzling. Do you honestly not see the difference?

unsui 5y ago

whataboutism... those deserve their own attention on their own merits. But not directly relevant to this discussion, particularly if it defers or interferes with the FB discussion specifically.