3 ms·
My initial reaction to this headline was, "Orwellian doublespeak at its best," which is of course the hoped-for response. On second thought, I don't see why th
by barretts 13y ago
My initial reaction to this headline was, "Orwellian doublespeak at its best," which is of course the hoped-for response.
On second thought, I don't see why this matters. Facebook transparency matters only to Facebook account holders. And it's free to create an account if you don't have one.
Getting mad over this would be like getting mad when the government releases electronic data sets, which of course means you have to have a computer (and computer savviness) to access them.
- rohansingh 13y agoAgreed. I would be worried if this were a page on Facebook's policy about government requests. That would mean you would have to sign up and consent to a policy before being able to read. This, on the other hand, is a report about ongoing operations. Kind of sucks it's not entirely public, but I don't see that Facebook has any ethical obligation to make it so.
- uptown 13y ago"Facebook transparency matters only to Facebook account holders." Facebook transparency likely also matters to anybody with a "shadow profile". Even if you don't have an account, any friend who has synced their phone's phonebook containing your information to Facebook's servers has established a profile of you which Facebook then has a responsibility to maintain in a responsible manner.
- oakwhiz 13y agoIt is entirely possible that you might not want your account details associated with the fact that you are interested in knowing about Facebook's transparency.
- alcari 13y agoIt also matters to anyone who formerly had an account. We're reasonably sure Facebook doesn't delete peoples' content when they request their account be deleted, so such people both have data in Facebook's system and lack an account with which to view the transparency report.