5 ms·

So it’s a linguistic issue. You’re lumping integrity as “do people abuse our system” with “does person A follow the same morals as me”. Specifically, looks lik

So it’s a linguistic issue. You’re lumping integrity as “do people abuse our system” with “does person A follow the same morals as me”. Specifically, looks like your morals are that products that are free in exchange for anonymously analyzing your data are immoral. (Remember: Onavo gave free VPN to users) It’s a reasonable position to take, but it’s unclear it’s necessarily true and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you has no integrity, more so, it definitely doesn’t imply they can’t achieve results. There’s plenty of criticism to give on Facebook’s integrity efforts. I just don’t think yours is helping the discussion. And as an example, I think the linked article is a great idea and hope the founders succeed.

0x4d464d48 5y ago
"So it’s a linguistic issue." Only in the same way that you can dismiss misaligned values as a 'linguistic issue'.
jonny_eh 5y ago
> Remember: Onavo gave free VPN to users IIRC, it wasn't just a free VPN, it also did extra compression of data like images to speed up site loading on mobile. This eventually stopped working when https became more popular.
splistud 5y ago
Were 'anonymously analyzing your data' either true, or the complete extent of the exchange, then you might have a point
tedivm 5y ago
This is part of the problem with talking with Facebook engineers. Most of society is against spyware. It's not a controversial topic- spyware is pretty frowned upon. Spying on people does, to most people, show a lack of integrity. So does much of the other actions Facebook has taken and which are now coming out in these leaks. If you bring this up with Facebook engineers it turns into a "linguistic" issue. You're told that integrity only applies in the computer science sense of the word, and are then told by the engineer what you "actually" think. All of this is condescending and distracting from the main point- which seems to be the point.
- strulovich 5y ago
  I’m sorry if my tone is not coming across as I intended. I think there’s plenty of arguments to be made against Facebook’s integrity effort, and plenty of that work happened on Guy Rosen’s shift. But your feedback is not nuanced and seems to be avoiding a lot of the context on purpose. It seems to be about getting people enraged through an implied accusation in your first comment. In reality there’s some things you should consider: - Onavo started as a “compress your data to save you money app” (I used it back then for a while) - Seems like they found making money from selling market research data from aggregated users is a more visible business than getting customers to pay (way before FB purchased them) - customers willingly installed the app, they got value from it, and not one customer actually got hurt (correct me if I’m wrong) - Onavo was popular in countries with censored internet as a free workaround - selling or using aggregated market research data is not illegal. It’s practiced by all of FB’s competition at the time (Apple and Google have control of their platforms and I’ll guess use this data). Other equivalents include Uber’s credit card as a way to see where people spend money on what transportation and restaurants. I’m sorry if you find any of this condescending, this is not my intention. I just wanted to clarify what’s your issue with Guy is. That is all.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Here's an easy test: was Onavo (or, for that matter, is Facebook) upfront with users about the data they were collecting and how they were using it? Or did they hide it behind legalese in the terms of service?
    - strulovich 5y ago
      I don’t think even Apple passes this test though. (And I do consider Apple to much better privacy wise than other big tech)
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        We're not talking about Apple, though. You're presenting the context of Onavo's actions as though people weighed the pros and cons and made an informed decision about whether to use the app. I'm adding another bit of context that suggests people did not realize what Onavo was doing behind the scenes, and that Onavo concealed their behavior because otherwise people wouldn't use it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
spywaregorilla 5y ago
If there's any linguistics problems here, it's that the head of integrity's role is not to promote integrity, but rather to be manage user fraud from what I can see.
mikestew 5y ago
And here we have an actual real-life example of when that Upton Sinclair quote can be used in a non-snarky way. Because, yeah, it's just a semantical argument.

0x4d464d48 5y ago

"So it’s a linguistic issue." Only in the same way that you can dismiss misaligned values as a 'linguistic issue'.

jonny_eh 5y ago

> Remember: Onavo gave free VPN to users IIRC, it wasn't just a free VPN, it also did extra compression of data like images to speed up site loading on mobile. This eventually stopped working when https became more popular.

splistud 5y ago

Were 'anonymously analyzing your data' either true, or the complete extent of the exchange, then you might have a point

tedivm 5y ago

This is part of the problem with talking with Facebook engineers. Most of society is against spyware. It's not a controversial topic- spyware is pretty frowned upon. Spying on people does, to most people, show a lack of integrity. So does much of the other actions Facebook has taken and which are now coming out in these leaks. If you bring this up with Facebook engineers it turns into a "linguistic" issue. You're told that integrity only applies in the computer science sense of the word, and are then told by the engineer what you "actually" think. All of this is condescending and distracting from the main point- which seems to be the point.

strulovich 5y ago
I’m sorry if my tone is not coming across as I intended. I think there’s plenty of arguments to be made against Facebook’s integrity effort, and plenty of that work happened on Guy Rosen’s shift. But your feedback is not nuanced and seems to be avoiding a lot of the context on purpose. It seems to be about getting people enraged through an implied accusation in your first comment. In reality there’s some things you should consider: - Onavo started as a “compress your data to save you money app” (I used it back then for a while) - Seems like they found making money from selling market research data from aggregated users is a more visible business than getting customers to pay (way before FB purchased them) - customers willingly installed the app, they got value from it, and not one customer actually got hurt (correct me if I’m wrong) - Onavo was popular in countries with censored internet as a free workaround - selling or using aggregated market research data is not illegal. It’s practiced by all of FB’s competition at the time (Apple and Google have control of their platforms and I’ll guess use this data). Other equivalents include Uber’s credit card as a way to see where people spend money on what transportation and restaurants. I’m sorry if you find any of this condescending, this is not my intention. I just wanted to clarify what’s your issue with Guy is. That is all.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  Here's an easy test: was Onavo (or, for that matter, is Facebook) upfront with users about the data they were collecting and how they were using it? Or did they hide it behind legalese in the terms of service?
  - strulovich 5y ago
    I don’t think even Apple passes this test though. (And I do consider Apple to much better privacy wise than other big tech)
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      We're not talking about Apple, though. You're presenting the context of Onavo's actions as though people weighed the pros and cons and made an informed decision about whether to use the app. I'm adding another bit of context that suggests people did not realize what Onavo was doing behind the scenes, and that Onavo concealed their behavior because otherwise people wouldn't use it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

spywaregorilla 5y ago

If there's any linguistics problems here, it's that the head of integrity's role is not to promote integrity, but rather to be manage user fraud from what I can see.

mikestew 5y ago

And here we have an actual real-life example of when that Upton Sinclair quote can be used in a non-snarky way. Because, yeah, it's just a semantical argument.