4 ms·
>But don’t muddy the waters by calling it something fundamentally different. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-4
by rl3 4y ago
>But don’t muddy the waters by calling it something fundamentally different.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582
"In total, it said the social network had special arrangements with more than 150 companies to share its members' personal data. Most of these, it said, were other tech firms, but the list also included online retailers, car-makers and media organisations, including the NYT itself, among others."
Suffice it to say Facebook's track record with PII is pretty terrible. At some point the word sell really becomes a matter of semantics.
- charcircuit 4y agoAgain you are bumping the waters. Users were asked permission for Facebook to share their user data. Saying Facebook has a poor track record because they had a more open platform in the past isn't true. Now Facebook is more closed and locked down because giving people the option to share their information is apparently a bad thing according to the public.
- rl3 4y agoI don't buy that narrative. As if things were somehow fine until the stupid public ruined it all. Facebook is and always has been deep in adtech, which is fundamentally slimy. It's no surprise that led to a history littered with data privacy blunders. >Again you are bumping the waters. On the contrary, my chemistry knowledge is too poor to do such a thing.