annadane

34 ms·

121.
by annadane 5y ago
Comments that tend to be critical of Facebook tend to get downvotes, at least early on in the discussion; it's hard not to suspect something may be going on
122.
by annadane 5y ago
I can't help but feel they might have avoided some of the antitrust scrutiny if not for lying about Whatsapp (repeatedly), or launching attack ads against Apple, or... there's a few different things but I always feel like they don
123.
by annadane 5y ago
Is this really the general point of view on this website? Are you comfortable with an entity like Facebook which has shown to lie repeatedly, to have spy glasses? An entity like Zuckerberg who is hell-bent on crushing all his competition? R
124.
by annadane 5y ago
Ah, more of Zuckerberg's jealousy because Snapchat refused their acquisition offer?
125.
by annadane 5y ago
It's just bad optics, no pun intended. They know the privacy concerns surrounding Facebook yet they choose to release smart glasses
126.
by annadane 5y ago
Because they employ blitzkrieg tactics that nobody should be able to get away with and by the time we notice it's too late to change our consumption habits
127.
by annadane 5y ago
The problem seems to be though, that while the company may have tools to detect abuse, if they're choosing selectively when to enforce things it defeats the entire point Edit: downvotes from shills
128.
by annadane 5y ago
I love how this page is randomly on Hacker News
129.
by annadane 5y ago
>it is unclear to me why this is being downvoted I would tell you why, but you're not allowed to according to site rules (it rhymes with 'billing')
130.
by annadane 5y ago
Taking bets on how much of this is an ego trip from Zuck to stick it to the Apple people about their child protection controversy "See? We're not like them"
131.
by annadane 5y ago
Putting aside the whole "Facebook has something to do with this so I will dismiss it out of hand because blah blah blah evil company" I don't really see the point in smart glasses, though yeah I'm sure it has some uses
132.
by annadane 5y ago
Zero sense of stagnation because what they do is actively tricking the user at every turn (lying about Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions, same thing with the Oculus) and users have no choice
133.
by annadane 5y ago
>FB becomes the bridge between you and your social life for most people - it really is between FB (+Insta/WA), phones and e-mails And guess what Facebook did in 2012? Stripped out email addresses from profiles
134.
by annadane 5y ago
Wondering if this comment is typical of people posting on this site and I'm getting depressed thinking it might be
135.
by annadane 5y ago
>These were all approved at the time With specific conditions, which Facebook violated
136.
by annadane 5y ago
I think the fact they can always claim to be hiding behind Cambridge Analytica is disgusting. They're clearly not the same
137.
by annadane 5y ago
I am ever so glad Zuckerberg bullied the original Instagram founders out of their company; clearly he being in charge is much better (/s)
138.
by annadane 5y ago
It bothers me just in general how Facebook will respond to antitrust action with "But you allowed it at the time!" Yes, but you also directly lied about your intentions and went right ahead and did the thing you said you weren&#x2
139.
Matrix Closure (2018)(disroot.org)
4 points by annadane 5y ago|1 comments
140.
by annadane 5y ago
I actually completely understand WHY the average "lay-person" thinks encryption must be bad because it allows terrorists and child pornographers to confer in secret to plan their nasty deeds. It's completely defensible to thi
141.
by annadane 5y ago
I still seriously doubt we would have another Cambridge Analytica situation if the research was allowed to continue, but maybe FB really is that scared of another 5 billion fine
142.
by annadane 5y ago
lmao
143.
by annadane 5y ago
No. I'm talking about how removing (for example) Vine access had nothing to do with API safety and everything to do with making a walled garden
144.
by annadane 5y ago
Network effects are pretty big. Don't be dismissive.
145.
by annadane 5y ago
A 'private entity' that tries as hard as it can be to be a monopoly of everything and has hundreds of millions (I won't say billions because I don't trust Facebook's own figures) of users that rely on their services
146.
by annadane 5y ago
They are and it's already proven they did that before, shutting down APIs ostensibly to protect consumer privacy but actually doing it for monopolistic reasons (as internal emails disclosed)
147.
by annadane 5y ago
Because no personal information gets stored with NYU, it's just simply not correct to equate the two situations
148.
by annadane 5y ago
The comparisons to Cambridge Analytica that I see here aren't correct. They got fined for being wilful about granting developers a lot of access to data, and I understand they're scared but this isn't being done in good faith
149.
by annadane 5y ago
You're not allowed to say that on HN (I don't disapprove of you saying it however and I've said the same thing myself - the point of my comment is that it's ridiculous to disallow comments like that)
150.
by annadane 5y ago
I hate a lot of things about Facebook and am very critical of them but I don't trust NSO to tell the truth about this Thanks for the downvotes appreciate it

More ›