9 ms·

Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. Also: https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/11/teen-and-mom-p

Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. Also: https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/11/teen-and-mom-plead-guilty-to-abortion-charges-based-on-facebook-data/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/11/teen-and-mom-plead-guilty-... They must be able to do good targeted advertising without message contents, with public likes and other data on scrolling behavior, especially as AI tools improve. Maybe having this data is more trouble than it's worth. Data is a liability as well as an asset.

gmadsen 3y ago
its the "right" thing to do only by a small population of tech workers. Most people do not care, and ad customers would be very upset if this degrades targeting.
- pnt12 3y ago
  I contest both opinions: 1. More and more people care about this, eg journalists, politicians, etc. Apple has been talking about this a lot, although some being propaganda for messages, but their customers are already somewhat aware of private messenging. 2. It may not degrade ad targeting that much. I imagine doomscrolling does it way more: you engaged with this post, you ignored that one, and so on.
  - gmadsen 3y ago
    for 2, I will say anecdotally I have never in my life bought something directly from an ad until the last 2 years on instagram. It actually found things directly useful to me that I did not know about beforehand (I did still go through an hour of research or so, but was amazed at the algorithm discovery capability)
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
OP’s question rejects the premise of your justification. Facebook doesn’t have much of a track record of “doing the right thing” for its users.
assbuttbuttass 3y ago
Ha, good one
bear141 3y ago
What a refreshing perspective. I also trust them to act altruistically.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  Some trust is indeed refreshing. But don't be naive. With Zuckerberg's and FB's track record, their business decisions ought not to be trusted.
  - bear141 3y ago
    I guess the /s was needed.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
> Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. If that is true, good. But it'll take a very many doing "the right thing"s before I would trust anything Zuck owned.
- et-al 3y ago
  “People just submitted it. I don’t know why. They ‘trust me.’ Dumb fucks.”
stevage 3y ago
> Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. I worked for FB briefly. It was enough to convince me that the "it's the right thing to do" is definitely not relevant to this question.
- raccoonDivider 3y ago
  The few guys in charge of security engineering don't have to share the values of the whole company.
  - x0x0 3y ago
    Nonsense -- they do as long as Mark, and his chosen exec team, control whether they work there or not. Anything else is a pretty lie people tell themselves because they like the paycheck.
  - stevage 3y ago
    That's kind of what I thought before I saw inside. What actually happens is the reverse. 99% of engineers can have amazing values that you share, but they do not ultimately make the decisions. The board, Zuck, and the $ do.
- mario970v 3y ago
  Seconded
- kaliqt 3y ago
  Yeah I wasn't under the impression that respect the rights of customers was in their top 10 priorities.
  - eulgro 3y ago
    Customers are the ones paying for ads. Users are just a resource.
- browningstreet 3y ago
  There were two parts to what you responded to. In terms of brand risk into the future, the second part could reasonably stand, no?
contrarian1234 3y ago
- It's hard to imagine a project getting signed off for just being "nice" - especially when it hurts their own business interests. - I don't really see it making sense as a PR move to build trust. I think outside of the tech sector they are doing fine on that front. The vast majority of people use their Bytedance, Meta, Tencent, etc. apps and aren't considering their encryptedness. - I don't think this announcement will get any substantial press coverage - It could be preemptive so that they don't get bad PR when they end up being "complicit" in getting people sent to jail for abortions (in the US) or being gay (in some African countries) or whatever
- bryan_w 3y ago
  > It could be preemptive so that they don't get bad PR when they end up being "complicit" in getting people sent to jail for abortions (in the US) or being gay (in some African countries) or whatever Exactly this. With the recent laws passed they see how their altruistic "save the children" partnerships with law enforcement could be twisted for causes that aren't as popular everywhere. Also it cost money to serve all those warrants.
giancarlostoro 3y ago
I think end to end encryption should be the minimum requirement for any private / direct messaging in any chat application. Group chats and larger I don't think it's as necessary since the guarantee that the conversations will be leaked is much higher, just reasonable encryption for those is fine. I do think its entirely possible to have a conversation that sounds incriminating out of context, and in fact is not even remotely relevant. If my shitposting conversations from my teens were taken out of context and shown in a court room I'd be facing several life sentences in an asylum.
ghostbrainalpha 3y ago
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zuckerberg-called-people-who-handed-over-their-data-dumb-f/ https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zucker...
- basch 3y ago
  I maintain that that was an intelligent commentary on human nature, and that it has been misconstrued. He was saying “I could be anyone” not “I can’t be trusted.”
Suffocate5100 3y ago
I think you're right insofar as they are trying to reposition themselves as more trustworthy. I think they see the writing on the walls. But at the end of the day, their ultimate end is to make more money. If they do the right thing it isn't out of some altruistic motive. It's because they think that by doing so will make them more money.
devaiops9001 3y ago
> Maybe [Facebook is] doing it because it's the right thing to do This is the most autistic thing I have read on the internet this year, second to a personal friend sperging out thinking he was going to wife up the first girl he met at a party.

gmadsen 3y ago

its the "right" thing to do only by a small population of tech workers. Most people do not care, and ad customers would be very upset if this degrades targeting.

pnt12 3y ago
I contest both opinions: 1. More and more people care about this, eg journalists, politicians, etc. Apple has been talking about this a lot, although some being propaganda for messages, but their customers are already somewhat aware of private messenging. 2. It may not degrade ad targeting that much. I imagine doomscrolling does it way more: you engaged with this post, you ignored that one, and so on.
- gmadsen 3y ago
  for 2, I will say anecdotally I have never in my life bought something directly from an ad until the last 2 years on instagram. It actually found things directly useful to me that I did not know about beforehand (I did still go through an hour of research or so, but was amazed at the algorithm discovery capability)

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

OP’s question rejects the premise of your justification. Facebook doesn’t have much of a track record of “doing the right thing” for its users.

assbuttbuttass 3y ago

Ha, good one

bear141 3y ago

What a refreshing perspective. I also trust them to act altruistically.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Some trust is indeed refreshing. But don't be naive. With Zuckerberg's and FB's track record, their business decisions ought not to be trusted.
- bear141 3y ago
  I guess the /s was needed.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

> Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. If that is true, good. But it'll take a very many doing "the right thing"s before I would trust anything Zuck owned.

et-al 3y ago
“People just submitted it. I don’t know why. They ‘trust me.’ Dumb fucks.”

stevage 3y ago

> Maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, and because they'd like people to trust them. I worked for FB briefly. It was enough to convince me that the "it's the right thing to do" is definitely not relevant to this question.

raccoonDivider 3y ago
The few guys in charge of security engineering don't have to share the values of the whole company.
- x0x0 3y ago
  Nonsense -- they do as long as Mark, and his chosen exec team, control whether they work there or not. Anything else is a pretty lie people tell themselves because they like the paycheck.
- stevage 3y ago
  That's kind of what I thought before I saw inside. What actually happens is the reverse. 99% of engineers can have amazing values that you share, but they do not ultimately make the decisions. The board, Zuck, and the $ do.
mario970v 3y ago
Seconded
kaliqt 3y ago
Yeah I wasn't under the impression that respect the rights of customers was in their top 10 priorities.
- eulgro 3y ago
  Customers are the ones paying for ads. Users are just a resource.
browningstreet 3y ago
There were two parts to what you responded to. In terms of brand risk into the future, the second part could reasonably stand, no?

contrarian1234 3y ago

- It's hard to imagine a project getting signed off for just being "nice" - especially when it hurts their own business interests. - I don't really see it making sense as a PR move to build trust. I think outside of the tech sector they are doing fine on that front. The vast majority of people use their Bytedance, Meta, Tencent, etc. apps and aren't considering their encryptedness. - I don't think this announcement will get any substantial press coverage - It could be preemptive so that they don't get bad PR when they end up being "complicit" in getting people sent to jail for abortions (in the US) or being gay (in some African countries) or whatever

bryan_w 3y ago
> It could be preemptive so that they don't get bad PR when they end up being "complicit" in getting people sent to jail for abortions (in the US) or being gay (in some African countries) or whatever Exactly this. With the recent laws passed they see how their altruistic "save the children" partnerships with law enforcement could be twisted for causes that aren't as popular everywhere. Also it cost money to serve all those warrants.

giancarlostoro 3y ago

I think end to end encryption should be the minimum requirement for any private / direct messaging in any chat application. Group chats and larger I don't think it's as necessary since the guarantee that the conversations will be leaked is much higher, just reasonable encryption for those is fine. I do think its entirely possible to have a conversation that sounds incriminating out of context, and in fact is not even remotely relevant. If my shitposting conversations from my teens were taken out of context and shown in a court room I'd be facing several life sentences in an asylum.

ghostbrainalpha 3y ago

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zuckerberg-called-people-who-handed-over-their-data-dumb-f/ https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a19490586/mark-zucker...

basch 3y ago
I maintain that that was an intelligent commentary on human nature, and that it has been misconstrued. He was saying “I could be anyone” not “I can’t be trusted.”

Suffocate5100 3y ago

I think you're right insofar as they are trying to reposition themselves as more trustworthy. I think they see the writing on the walls. But at the end of the day, their ultimate end is to make more money. If they do the right thing it isn't out of some altruistic motive. It's because they think that by doing so will make them more money.

devaiops9001 3y ago

> Maybe [Facebook is] doing it because it's the right thing to do This is the most autistic thing I have read on the internet this year, second to a personal friend sperging out thinking he was going to wife up the first girl he met at a party.