3 ms·

Can you give an example of "the ones they don't like"? FB is in the data harvesting and aggregation business. Anyone using their data - without reciprocity - is

Can you give an example of "the ones they don't like"? FB is in the data harvesting and aggregation business. Anyone using their data - without reciprocity - is unwelcomed. Full stop. We're not users to FB anymore than a cow is family to a milk farmer. Of course they'll protect the farm, not because they're benevolent, but simply because it keeps the milk flowing and that product pays the bills.

shakna 5y ago
> Can you give an example of "the ones they don't like"? FB is in the data harvesting and aggregation business. Anyone using their data - without reciprocity - is unwelcomed. Full stop. Cambridge Analytica comes to mind. Facebook actively assisted them. Though the scandal caused many, many policy changes at Facebook, it is a historical case of Facebook assisting someone using their data to spy on their users.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  I don't think CA was a liked, per se. FB needed a success story (of sorts). Without that the strength of the product would be suspect. As it is, CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That said, perception is reality. FB got the better end of the deal.
  - shakna 5y ago
    > As it is, CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That's fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand, without saying anything about it, one way or the other. Facebook has given away their data in the past, and gone so far as to provide special access for some clients over others. That is undisputed. There's no reason to believe that they may not do so again, in future, if they believe it to be in their interests.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      Give away? Nothing is free. FB isn't in the donation business. There might not have been a transparent financial transaction, but that's not a proxy for "given away." We're discussing FB, not the local pizza shop. Let's be realistic about their power and how they operate, etc.
  - consumer451 5y ago
    > CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That’s quite a dismissal. Is this even possible? How would one go about proving or disproving such an effect? From what I recall, CA was considered to be a military grade weapon by the UK gov which needed approve each case prior to export. Promises were made that it would never be used domestically. Based on this information, I would have to assume that CA is effective, generally speaking.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      I was simply stating a fact that ws important to the context and proposed theory. Had that not been pointed out there would have been cries of "but CA's influence is unproven..." Sometimes there's no winning on HN even when being complete and facts-based.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
facebook used user data as an incentive for companies to build apps on their platform. at one point their ambition was to compete with iphone/android (they got as far as an android skin, but amazon and firefox were competing in this space as well, it wasn’t crazy to think they could do it) if you want people running your OS, you need a good app store, and facebook’s whole thing was free apps (farmville and the like) - without traditional monetization, how could facebook attract big developers to fill their phone platform with apps and avoid the fate of windows phone? well, when you use an app on facebook, you give the app permission to read your data, sometimes a lot of your data. see this illuminating article, “What the fuck was facebook thinking” [0]. facebook can say truthfully they never sold anyone’s data, because they gave it away for free to anyone who would build an app to keep people on their platform. [0] https://jamesallworth.medium.com/what-the-f-was-facebook-thinking-a1c49dbf29c2 https://jamesallworth.medium.com/what-the-f-was-facebook-thi...

shakna 5y ago

> Can you give an example of "the ones they don't like"? FB is in the data harvesting and aggregation business. Anyone using their data - without reciprocity - is unwelcomed. Full stop. Cambridge Analytica comes to mind. Facebook actively assisted them. Though the scandal caused many, many policy changes at Facebook, it is a historical case of Facebook assisting someone using their data to spy on their users.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
I don't think CA was a liked, per se. FB needed a success story (of sorts). Without that the strength of the product would be suspect. As it is, CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That said, perception is reality. FB got the better end of the deal.
- shakna 5y ago
  > As it is, CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That's fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand, without saying anything about it, one way or the other. Facebook has given away their data in the past, and gone so far as to provide special access for some clients over others. That is undisputed. There's no reason to believe that they may not do so again, in future, if they believe it to be in their interests.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Give away? Nothing is free. FB isn't in the donation business. There might not have been a transparent financial transaction, but that's not a proxy for "given away." We're discussing FB, not the local pizza shop. Let's be realistic about their power and how they operate, etc.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > CA's affect on the election isn't proven. That’s quite a dismissal. Is this even possible? How would one go about proving or disproving such an effect? From what I recall, CA was considered to be a military grade weapon by the UK gov which needed approve each case prior to export. Promises were made that it would never be used domestically. Based on this information, I would have to assume that CA is effective, generally speaking.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    I was simply stating a fact that ws important to the context and proposed theory. Had that not been pointed out there would have been cries of "but CA's influence is unproven..." Sometimes there's no winning on HN even when being complete and facts-based.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

facebook used user data as an incentive for companies to build apps on their platform. at one point their ambition was to compete with iphone/android (they got as far as an android skin, but amazon and firefox were competing in this space as well, it wasn’t crazy to think they could do it) if you want people running your OS, you need a good app store, and facebook’s whole thing was free apps (farmville and the like) - without traditional monetization, how could facebook attract big developers to fill their phone platform with apps and avoid the fate of windows phone? well, when you use an app on facebook, you give the app permission to read your data, sometimes a lot of your data. see this illuminating article, “What the fuck was facebook thinking” [0]. facebook can say truthfully they never sold anyone’s data, because they gave it away for free to anyone who would build an app to keep people on their platform. [0] https://jamesallworth.medium.com/what-the-f-was-facebook-thinking-a1c49dbf29c2 https://jamesallworth.medium.com/what-the-f-was-facebook-thi...