3 ms·
It’s hardly calm and cogent — in fact it’s sort of a wild accusation — to describe a post as “flinging wild accusations” when it does nothing of the sort. Yes,
by HalSF 15y ago
It’s hardly calm and cogent — in fact it’s sort of a wild accusation — to describe a post as “flinging wild accusations” when it does nothing of the sort. Yes, Anil’s post is sharply argued and it’s definitely a polemical pushback against Facebook’s practice, but it’s a valuable part of the debate (especially with the added value of the comments below it), not a flame.
- anildash 15y agoAppreciate the support, HalSF -- I try very hard to be intellectually honest even when making an obviously strongly-felt point.
- chc 15y agoDo you really think so? It's intellectually honest to suggest that Stop Badware — a system intended to cordon off viruses, spyware and surreptitiously installed junkware — should be used to punish a site because its threat detection algorithms are overly cautious? That doesn't strike you as even a little bit spiteful?
- anildash 15y agoStop Badware regularly flags sites that issue spurious security warnings in an attempt to mislead users. Facebook certainly falls under that description.
- shaver 15y agoCan you give me an example? Sites get entered in there if they try to install malware on people's machines. I think it's straight-up ridiculous to say that FB's text there is an attempt to mislead users. It gives good advice that most people don't keep in mind at a funnel point that's known to be relevant to an enormous number of phishing and other attacks. Do you actually believe the things you're saying? I'm struggling here. (StopBadware actually doesn't flag sites at all.)
- benregenspan 15y agoBut you didn't make a case either that Facebook is attempting to mislead users, or indeed that their actions are misleading users at all. A number of sites gate outbound traffic for security reasons, and the language Facebook shows users is totally consistent with this - it doesn't read "You are about to visit a dangerous site", instead it warns users in generic language of phishing, etc. The error here is attributing malice to a bug or annoyingly-implemented feature. That feature clearly falls short of any reasonable "badware" criteria.
- chc 15y agoI don't see how you can describe the statements "Facebook is gaslighting the web"† and "Facebook has moved from merely being a walled garden into openly attacking its users' ability and willingness to navigate the rest of the web" as anything but wild accusations. You might argue that, as wild as they are, they're nonetheless true — but they are accusations and extreme ones at that. I certainly feel that Anil's post could have benefited from at least a cursory application of Hanlon's razor. † For those who don't know, the term "gaslighting" refers to a form of mental abuse where you undermine a person's confidence in their own perceptions and competence in order to retain their belief or loyalty. The typical example is an abusive husband who keeps his wife from leaving by making her feel like it's all her fault.
- benregenspan 15y agoAgreed. I was expecting a much more substantial argument from Anil, but instead the post offers a list of disparate concerns without any real attempt made to link them together or to justify such strong statements. There are all kinds of explanations for discontinuing RSS import support and for malware warnings that do not point to nefariousness on the part of Facebook.