4 ms·

It should also be noted Facebook does nothing in good faith because Zuckerberg's core personality is what it is It isn't that biometrics might never make sense

It should also be noted Facebook does nothing in good faith because Zuckerberg's core personality is what it is It isn't that biometrics might never make sense but when it comes to Facebook? He's a black hat hacker who deserves prison

alex1138 4mo ago
To the downvoter: please note Facebook used email passwords. Zuckerberg hacked Crimson reporters who were investigating him circa 2003. I mean what I said. Why do you have the 500 karma necessary to do that?
lenerdenator 4mo ago
At the very least, we need to outlaw the method of corporate governance that Meta (and increasingly, other tech companies) use. Mark has an absolute majority of shares at Meta at around 61% [0]. It is literally impossible for the board or other shareholders to cause him to do anything he doesn't want to do or to make him work in the best interests of others, whether they be other shareholders or the public. Meta is more-or-less a sole proprietorship with window dressing. If no one can force a company to change by anything short of a person's passing or their loss of interest, then it's not really governed, and cannot be trusted to operate within the market and society at large. We need to make these organizations accountable to others in the systems in which they participate. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-...
red-iron-pine 4mo ago
Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks.
__MatrixMan__ 4mo ago
There are cases where it's sufficient to find a leader with sufficient moral fiber to resist corruption, but I don't think this is one of them. Zuck was a scumbag to start with, but being the kind of admin that gets to jerk people around on the basis of their biology is a corrupting kind of power. Even a well meaning individual, given a few decades at the helm of a company based around treating user's faces like they're the company's intellectual property, would have become a scumbag by now. Maybe biometrics as a convenience, where they don't leave the device they're captured on and are secondary to some other credential which the user can change, are alright. But any central registry of people's body parts is gonna be a short cut to bad juju. It's an architecture we should work to prevent because it'll create Zuck-a-likes.
- alex1138 4mo ago
  Yeah that's totally fair. I just meant that the way Meta does it, like... oh oops, sorry, we've suspended your account. Give us your face to regain access to your friends (which they'd already previously taken away, granted this is 14 years ago or 15 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433)

alex1138 4mo ago

To the downvoter: please note Facebook used email passwords. Zuckerberg hacked Crimson reporters who were investigating him circa 2003. I mean what I said. Why do you have the 500 karma necessary to do that?

lenerdenator 4mo ago

At the very least, we need to outlaw the method of corporate governance that Meta (and increasingly, other tech companies) use. Mark has an absolute majority of shares at Meta at around 61% [0]. It is literally impossible for the board or other shareholders to cause him to do anything he doesn't want to do or to make him work in the best interests of others, whether they be other shareholders or the public. Meta is more-or-less a sole proprietorship with window dressing. If no one can force a company to change by anything short of a person's passing or their loss of interest, then it's not really governed, and cannot be trusted to operate within the market and society at large. We need to make these organizations accountable to others in the systems in which they participate. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-shareholders-facebook-fb.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/082216/top-9-...

red-iron-pine 4mo ago

Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks.

__MatrixMan__ 4mo ago

There are cases where it's sufficient to find a leader with sufficient moral fiber to resist corruption, but I don't think this is one of them. Zuck was a scumbag to start with, but being the kind of admin that gets to jerk people around on the basis of their biology is a corrupting kind of power. Even a well meaning individual, given a few decades at the helm of a company based around treating user's faces like they're the company's intellectual property, would have become a scumbag by now. Maybe biometrics as a convenience, where they don't leave the device they're captured on and are secondary to some other credential which the user can change, are alright. But any central registry of people's body parts is gonna be a short cut to bad juju. It's an architecture we should work to prevent because it'll create Zuck-a-likes.

alex1138 4mo ago
Yeah that's totally fair. I just meant that the way Meta does it, like... oh oops, sorry, we've suspended your account. Give us your face to regain access to your friends (which they'd already previously taken away, granted this is 14 years ago or 15 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433)