10 ms·

Meta 'most reluctant' to work with government: Home Affairs

• 01acheru 5y ago
  At the beginning of the article I was like “That does not surprises me at all” but then you start reading: > The increasing normalisation of these technologies on digital platforms, including social media, is bringing dark web functionality to the mainstream > The Department’s engagement with Meta and other companies with ‘privacy first’ policies reveal a degree of seeming indifference to public safety imperatives, including in relation to children Come on people, that old “and the children?” trope? Australian government is really embarrassing some times
  • codyb 5y ago
    I was under impression "protecting the children" was one area Facebook had actually tried to do a decent job. Although a lot of their moderation logic is evaded with simple measures such as adding simple watermarks to images/videos.
    • throwawayboise 5y ago
      Well other than all the teenage girls that are depressed or killing themselves because of Instagram. They need to try harder.
      • aierou 5y ago
        This claim frustrates me in the same way as the claim that 'video games cause violence.'
      • yuliyp 5y ago
        Looking at the data that headline came from makes it much less clear (feel free to ignore the "Facebook Annotation" and focus on just the leaked/later released slide deck that was used to fuel those headlines: https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Teen-Annotated-Research-Deck-1.pdf https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te... (the headline came from slide 14).
    • brnt 5y ago
      Facebook's business model is to enable predators of every kind; commercial, political, sexual (remember how it all began?). I'm not letting my children, my family, myself anywhere near that cynical cesspit of destruction.
  • techdragon 5y ago
    I basically think of the department of home affairs as the morons that didn't realise 1984 was a warning and have mistaken it for a helpful instruction manual. It's to be expected they want to eliminate any vestige of public rights in the name of safety, the safety of the state they believe they are protecting, not the safety of its citizens. Just look at the way they laud operation ironsides, the FBI turned ANOM into a giant entrapment scheme and was able to arrest no-one due to it being blatantly unconstitutional in the USA, while here in Australia, we have zero protections and the Federal Police round up every single person they can find, trumpeting the wild success of their largest operation ever... handed to them on a silver plater by the US FBI, and such bad police work that it was unable to arrest anyone in the USA... Just disgusting... All of it.
    • michaelt 5y ago
      > the FBI turned ANOM into a giant entrapment scheme They turned it into a giant trap, but entrapment has a specific legal meaning and I'm not sure it applies to the ANOM case.
    • shadowgovt 5y ago
      Given that this is the same country where a whole bunch of harmless video games can't be played by adults because the government will refrain from giving them a rating, having the Australian government call out Meta really does have that "Worst person you know just made a great point" vibe to it. (https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...)
    • nostrademons 5y ago
      1984 was an instruction manual. Orwell based it off of his experiences writing propaganda for the BBC during WW2. At the time his wife was a censor for the Ministry of Information. He was writing about 1940's Britain, not a hypothetical 1984 Britain.
      • Jach 5y ago
        Central to its story is also its inner "The Book", which is very much an instruction manual in the what and the how.
  • Hamuko 5y ago
    https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/17/uk-government-anti-encryption-campaign/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/17/uk-government-anti-encr... What is it with the Commonwealth?
    • dane-pgp 5y ago
      Could it be that the intelligence services of the Five Eyes have all agreed it would be great to undermine encryption, but Canada and New Zealand have left wing / liberal / non-authoritarian governments, and the Democrats in the US don't want to weaken the security of (or campaign contributions from) US technology companies? That just leaves the UK and Australia to push for these awful policies, and pave the way for the other members to adopt them later.
  • ironmagma 5y ago
    Caring about children is actually a really good motivation for people improving the world. I don’t care how many people have abused the notion before, children suffering due to inaction or indifference is a bad thing and people know this intuitively.
    • Zak 5y ago
      "Think of the children; improve the nutrition of school lunches, and fund them so they're free to students" should probably be inside the Overton window. "Think of the children; make sure the government can easily read everyone's text messages" probably shouldn't.
      • ironmagma 5y ago
        The problem with this line of thought isn’t the motivation though, it’s the lack of attention to the pros weighed against the cons, and how heavy the cons are in relation to the pros. I can’t find a con to protecting the children. But what’s doubtful is whether you actually are protecting the children with this policy.
        • Zak 5y ago
          I don't believe this is realistic, but what if the policy could reduce online child grooming to near-zero? Would it be worth outlawing secure communication? I think that it would not.
          • ironmagma 5y ago
            Well, those children are people, and outlawing secure communication is bad for people. So I would argue the calculus is still incomplete the way it's presented.
        • candiodari 5y ago
          > I can’t find a con to protecting the children. But what’s doubtful is whether you actually are protecting the children with this policy. This is the result of government taking over the protection of specific children: https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article238206754.html https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-reports/article23820... If the government has any intention to protect children, and intention at all, this is where they'd start. These kids really need it, and the government has all the control they could possibly want or need to do it. They not only utterly fail, they regularly cut funding to what little efforts exist to help these children. So no, government does the opposite. Therefore their intention cannot be to protect children. So what OTHER effects does this have? Well it greatly increases the government's ability to directly interfere in the lives of citizens. Which they, not seeing any irony, use to send more kids to their foster care -> juvie -> prison carrousel. In fact that this enables them to do more of that, is one of the main reasons to do this. Seriously. When there are studies that show that, as a kid (on average, discarding extremes), you're better off abused at home than "taken care of" by the state. On average, you're better off without government help. For example: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 (I do not deny that there are situations where state help is necessary. However, anyone that knows anything about the foster system knows that they don't help in such situations. These situations are too difficult/too much violence to deal with/no expected positive result/... and explicitly target kids with small or nonexistent problems because they're paid per child, based on the care provided. So 24/7 care for a problem-free toddler is where the financial incentives are for them. This even applies to medical problems: child has cancer? You're entirely safe from youth services. Why? Because caring for that child is too expensive ... the EXACT opposite you'd want to see them do, but, of course, financially it makes total sense. Ironically this means effectively random (poor) kids go to foster care, then juvie, then back home, because it's a financial disaster for foster care, institutional or otherwise, to take them back, so suddenly there's "no more need" for care. It's a financial disaster for the parents too, of course) In fact there are studies that show that social workers REFUSING help to children (in reality to parents and schools) works very therapeutically, and actually fixes problems, by (amongst other things) creating a great need for the problem to get solved, rather than taking away the child, which of course takes away the problem without solving it, doing incredible permanent damage to kids in the process. So, in THEORY they do this to protect children. In PRACTICE they do this to damage children, and to do more damage to more children.
  • seneca 5y ago
    > Come on people, that old “and the children?” trope? Australian government is really embarrassing some times There's criticism of the "think of the children" trope because it's used to defend bad ideas using an emotional argument. The bad part is the smoke screen for bad ideas, not the defending children part. Putting a particular emphasis on the privacy of minors seems like a good idea.
  • Rebelgecko 5y ago
    This is the same country whose prime minister tried to ban encryption because "the laws of mathematics are very commendable" but should nevertheless be subservient to the laws of Australia
    • FredPret 5y ago
      What a way to solve for X! Do it by decree. What a moron. This is what you get in a political system dominated by lawyers.
      • Barrin92 5y ago
        I mean, he's right though. People who constantly bring up this "you can't ban math " meme make about as much sense as someone trying to argue you can't impose a speed limit because of the laws of physics. Australia is sovereign and it controls the communication in its territory is the point.
        • FredPret 5y ago
          Well, if they want to ban the communication of certain numbers and collapse their online economy that’s their problem. But what these idiots frequently ask for is a backdoor key to encryption that only the government can use. It’s frustrating to see weapons-grade technical ignorance in our leaders when we have an increasingly technical society.
        • bee_rider 5y ago
          Speak for yourself, I'm moving somewhere with a higher refractive index so my kids can play in the street more safely.
  • joe_the_user 5y ago
    Come on people, that old “and the children?” trope? Australian government is really embarrassing some times Oh I tend to flag those arguments as BS but you can never count them out. The problem is aside from the perfunctory, the strained and straight-up-false claims, there are a few places and context where children do need protection and some people quite determined to victimized them - and naturally people strongly emotionally invest where the protection is needed. And that creates a degree leverage that can be even when an audience is sophisticated - look at the many people defending Apple's neural hash absurdity here (risks re-litigating it but sure). Oh, and the way "think of children" is every censor and snoop's cry tend to detract from useful ways of protecting children (most of which don't have to with lots more electronic surveillance).
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• cletus 5y ago
  I really hate this "why won't anyone think of the children?" argument. It's right up there with "because terrorism". I mean the government isn't technically wrong but the same can be said for locking your doors and not having an always-on camera in your house the police can pull up anytime they want so it's always a question of where you draw the line. Whenever a government complains about a company this way I actually take it as a positive signal about that company. That's where we are right now.
  • techdragon 5y ago
    The government should never be allowed to be "not technically wrong", it must be held to account and made to prove why the course of action it is taking will result in something the public desires coming to pass. It can't just be "oh we need this because... reasons"
    • cletus 5y ago
      I'm not sure you understood my point: I'm arguing against this not for it. "Because children" and "because terrorism" don't trump everything else. If they did we'd have always-on cameras in our homes so the government needs to argue why the loss of privacy is justified and their stated reasons are insufficient.
      • andrewflnr 5y ago
        I think they're saying you didn't go far enough. ;)
        • techdragon 5y ago
          I was indeed.
  • tempodox 5y ago
    Indeed, seeing Facebook, of all companies, in a “not quite as bad as the other guys“ role is most surprising.
  • deleted 5y ago
• atty 5y ago
  Considering Australias stance on encryption and just about everything else tech related, I don’t see this as reflecting negatively on Meta.
  • thehappypm 5y ago
    This is a good point. Government is always in a battle between good and evil: protecting citizens from evil corps (food safety), and actually being evil (i.e. backdoors on encryption).
    • dylan604 5y ago
      > Government is always in a battle between good and evil: Is it? It seems to me gov't is about enriching those that have found themselves in positions of gov't office and their cronnies. Long ago has gov't no longer been concerned with the well being of its citizens.
      • edmundsauto 5y ago
        I think you’ll find a lot of very dedicated, well meaning people in government service. Especially at the local level. You have to actually talk to them and get to know them, of course, before you can judge their intentions. If you instead base your opinion off the attention whores you see/hear in media, then yeah you’re going to be distrustful. That’s because those people optimize for being in the news. They are a small fraction of the political world.
        • leppr 5y ago
          I base my opinion on the policies that come out of governments, not communications.
          • edmundsauto 5y ago
            This is an example of resulting, where you look at the outcome and not a process. I personally believe it’s an ineffective way to understand the reality of a situation, but each to their own.
• caskstrength 5y ago
  Finally some news that show Meta in a good light!
  • bjustin 5y ago
    I agree. I dislike Meta the company and yet the Australian government has managed to make them look good.
• jdlyga 5y ago
  Speaking of Meta, has anyone noticed how many articles talking about the metaverse act like it already exists?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • dylan604 5y ago
    If you speak the lie long enough, it becomes fact for those that hear it.
  • openknot 5y ago
    A lot of articles are using the 'metaverse' term to describe concepts that already exist. The Financial Times defines it as: "(noun) a virtual world where users appear as avatars to socialise, work, shop or play." [0] With this definition, virtual reality headsets aren't needed, as it already describes multiplayer video games with regular devices. That's why there are so many recent articles linking Microsoft's recent acquisition of Activision to the idea that Microsoft is trying to get a foothold in the "metaverse" (i.e. virtual reality, not necessarily with headsets). [0] Paywalled, but the quote is the starting sentence: https://www.ft.com/content/8903afb9-5206-4994-8bfd-e74b8f20899e https://www.ft.com/content/8903afb9-5206-4994-8bfd-e74b8f208...
• photochemsyn 5y ago
  It sounds like the issue here is that Facebook won't share all the data it collects on its product (i.e. Facebook users) with the Australian government? My understanding is that since the Cambridge Analytical issue, Facebook now manages all its data access in-house, so if you want to buy targeted advertising access from Facebook, you don't get to buy the product lists/categorizations directly, you have to submit your ad content to the Facebook advertising department, who then serves them directly to the product? I rather doubt Facebook is actually planning on implementing end-to-end encryption of the kind that would allow Facebook's product to hide their own data profiles from the Facebook advertising department, as that would defeat the whole purpose of the site. Targeted advertising based on Facebook's internal library of product data is the bread-and-butter of that outfit, isn't it? However, the product wants at least the illusion of privacy and Facebook wants more product, so it appears to be saying to the Australian government that it won't allow them to snoop on the product's data profiles. However, the whole thing could just be public posturing for PR purposes, and in reality they may have maintained backdoor access to product data for the NSA/GHCQ/FiveEyes etc. as per Snowden revelations about the PRISM program, which anyone can look up.
  • pbalau 5y ago
    > My understanding is that since the Cambridge Analytical issue, Facebook now manages all its data access in-house That was the case since, at least, I joined FB via an ad-tech acquisition, mid 2010s. We had a feature that allowed customers to host their own assets. That was the first thing that we had to remove after integrating with the FB stack. /edit: the CA scandal was ~ mid 2010s, my statement doesn't help. We joined before the scandal, by quite some time.
  • whimsicalism 5y ago
    > My understanding is that since the Cambridge Analytical issue, Facebook now manages all its data access in-house, so if you want to buy targeted advertising access from Facebook, you don't get to buy the product lists/categorizations directly, you have to submit your ad content to the Facebook advertising department, who then serves them directly to the product? I think the Cambridge Analytica issue is orthogonal to this - what you describe is standard supply-side advertising practice for much longer than since then.
• MertsA 5y ago
  Since they're claiming the tried and true "Won't somebody think of the children!" past work on the matter seems relevant. https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/how-facebook-helped-feds-catch-a-child-predator/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/how-facebook-helped-feds-catch...
  • halestock 5y ago
    Indeed! https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59063768 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59063768
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • colinmhayes 5y ago
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...
• ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  I don’t trust articles like this at all. It looks like some PR stuff Facebook intentionally plants in order to change public perception.
• jacquesm 5y ago
  Facebook. Let's not let them get away with the whitewash.
  • sgt 5y ago
    Was thinking exactly the same. Same thing with oil companies changing name to portray a different image. Statoil->Equinor comes to mind.
  • openknot 5y ago
    I thought it was interesting how newspapers were handling the name change. The Washington Post and The New York Times are both continuing to use Facebook whenever possible, with most articles using "Facebook" in the headline and contents of relevant articles this month. They only use "Meta" when they have to (e.g. when a government is specifically dealing with Meta as the parent organization of FB, Instagram, and WhatsApp, versus Facebook alone).
• fnord77 5y ago
• pasabagi 5y ago
  Does anybody else see a continuation of the Murdoch-Zuckerberg feud here? Australia is probably the most Murdoch-aligned country in the world, so it's no surprise they have a problem with Meta. You can also go back to the whole hullabaloo a few years ago after Trump got elected and see that the three nations who hauled facebook over the coals (UK, US, AU) all have a agenda-setting Murdoch media presence.
  • foobar1962 5y ago
    > Australia is probably the most Murdoch-aligned country in the world... Huh? We don't get Fox News here. He's been an American citizen for a long time now.
    • techdragon 5y ago
      His family still owns and controls massive percentage of the Australian media landscape. Instead of Fox News we have Sky News, the names change but the agenda was set in place by management selected for alignment with a wold view favourable to the Murdoch family. From the top it becomes corporate culture and gains the veneer of not being just Murdoch’s mouthpiece, but the agenda is still firmly pointed their direction.
    • 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
      Sorry mate, but they're right. Murdoch owns and controls most of our media.
    • stephen_g 5y ago
      Murdoch part owns Foxtel, owns Sky News (Australia), as well as 70+% of newspaper readership around the country (almost 100% of newspapers in my state). Don't underestimate the reach of Sky News too - it's big on YouTube and they signed a deal just a little while ago to put it free-to-air in many regional areas (which is really bad - their 'Sky After Dark' program is just as bad or worse than much of Fox News). As well, they provide it free as one of the channels available on 'ParlTV' which is what supplies every TV in Parliament House, and pay airlines and public transit agencies to get it shown on screens in airport lounges, train stations, etc.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• cruelty2 5y ago
• m1sta_ 5y ago
  These discussions too often devolve into a simple privacy vs surveillance discussion. It's frustrating because it's so much more nuanced than that. Authenticity is super important. Controls and auditability of surveillance power usage are too.
• alfongj 5y ago
  Narrative violation
• Lamad123 5y ago
  I'm supposed to sympathize with having Facebook violate individual privacy more than it already does!!!
• civilized 5y ago
  > Meta is planning to encrypt users’ messages on Facebook and Instagram, but has delayed the plan until 2023. > The Home Affairs submission claimed that this move will “provide predators with the ability to evade detection as they connect with multiple vulnerable children anywhere in the world and develop exploitative grooming relationships” Wow, the Australian government sucks big time. All they have to do is say "child molesters" and the Australian public gives up their right to private communication online?
  • twirlock 5y ago
  • faangiq 5y ago
    You get the government you deserve.
    • nybble41 5y ago
      > You get the government you deserve. Translation note: The first "you" is singular, while the second "you" is plural. The majority might, perhaps, get the government they deserve. The minority who lost the vote can't rationally be blamed for an outcome they opposed, yet they suffer right alongside.
  • Smoosh 5y ago
    > Wow, the Australian government sucks big time Yes, that's true. > All they have to do is say "child molesters" and the Australian public gives up their right to private communication online Not quite, but since our news media and government has been captured by monied interests, it is difficult for the public to be well informed on issues, and easy for the government to get away with anything provided it aligns with the desires of big business. And of course, old media (Papers, TV) are jealous of new media (Meta).
    • hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
      yes, the Aus public know nothing of these things. there is no media here.