3 ms·

This one seems like the better of the two, as it includes Q124 profit and revenue numbers, as well as the stock's movement

tediousgraffit1 2y ago
it also suggests some important details, like the fact that this was already opt-in: > At the time, more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users had opted in to have their faces recognized by the social network’s system.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Many of Facebook's "opt-in" things aren't actually consent, so I'm prejudicially wary of any numbers Facebook gives. (I have no insight into this particular case.)
- gerdesj 2y ago
  How was the "opt in" offered? In general, when I come across some sort of opt in I get offered a choice between allowing something to work and it not working and having some sort of a sub optimal experience. I can't even try before I buy either because once I have consented, the data/image/whatever is already "released". Most opt-in choices, unless coerced by laws, will be heavy handed nudges at best. I'm an IT consultant and stand more of a chance than most at making an informed choice but please don't wave "opt in" as some sort of laundering procedure. I am deliberately juxtaposing with money laundering.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  I don’t believe for a moment that a third of users would consensually opt-in to anything less than free money. I can’t tell you how many newsletters and other BS I unknowingly “opted-in” to, for example.
  - bicx 2y ago
    I believe they asked things like “Get notified when you appear in your friends photos” or something along those lines. My memory is fuzzy though. Phrasing it like that would probably get more opt-ins. It’s a lot less scary sounding.
    - erichocean 2y ago
      I kind of wish 3rd parties could set the text of what is being opted into. It's way too easy for companies to mislead consumers about what they are agreeing to.
      - freedomben 2y ago
        Yes, but the other side is true too. For example, if the prompt just said "Allow Facebook to scan all your personal photos and do facial recognition, and also capture some of that data for future use?" then it's not at all clear why they are asking for this. Also it's going to all be "no" from the users. Much better would be a compromise, that describes both why and what. Though, that will be a lot of text which isn't good either. Hard problem.
        Teever 2y ago
        I guess it's a hard problem, but is it a worthwhile problem?

tediousgraffit1 2y ago

it also suggests some important details, like the fact that this was already opt-in: > At the time, more than a third of Facebook’s daily active users had opted in to have their faces recognized by the social network’s system.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
Many of Facebook's "opt-in" things aren't actually consent, so I'm prejudicially wary of any numbers Facebook gives. (I have no insight into this particular case.)
gerdesj 2y ago
How was the "opt in" offered? In general, when I come across some sort of opt in I get offered a choice between allowing something to work and it not working and having some sort of a sub optimal experience. I can't even try before I buy either because once I have consented, the data/image/whatever is already "released". Most opt-in choices, unless coerced by laws, will be heavy handed nudges at best. I'm an IT consultant and stand more of a chance than most at making an informed choice but please don't wave "opt in" as some sort of laundering procedure. I am deliberately juxtaposing with money laundering.
nkrisc 2y ago
I don’t believe for a moment that a third of users would consensually opt-in to anything less than free money. I can’t tell you how many newsletters and other BS I unknowingly “opted-in” to, for example.
- bicx 2y ago
  I believe they asked things like “Get notified when you appear in your friends photos” or something along those lines. My memory is fuzzy though. Phrasing it like that would probably get more opt-ins. It’s a lot less scary sounding.
  - erichocean 2y ago
    I kind of wish 3rd parties could set the text of what is being opted into. It's way too easy for companies to mislead consumers about what they are agreeing to.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      Yes, but the other side is true too. For example, if the prompt just said "Allow Facebook to scan all your personal photos and do facial recognition, and also capture some of that data for future use?" then it's not at all clear why they are asking for this. Also it's going to all be "no" from the users. Much better would be a compromise, that describes both why and what. Though, that will be a lot of text which isn't good either. Hard problem.
      - Teever 2y ago
        I guess it's a hard problem, but is it a worthwhile problem?