Growth at any cost: Top Facebook exec defends data collection in 2016 memo
20 replies, posted
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/growth-at-any-cost-top-facebook-executive-defended-data?utm_term=.yon57Xk3A#.rmM3Kj06x
On June 18, 2016, one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s most trusted lieutenants circulated an extraordinary memo weighing the costs of the company’s relentless quest for growth.
“We connect people. Period. That’s why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it,” VP Andrew “Boz” Bosworth wrote.
“So we connect more people,” he wrote in another section of the memo. “That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs someone a life by exposing someone to bullies.
“Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.”
The explosive internal memo is titled “The Ugly,” and has not been previously circulated outside the Silicon Valley social media giant.
The Bosworth memo reveals the extent to which Facebook’s leadership understood the physical and social risks the platform’s products carried — even as the company downplayed those risks in public. It suggests that senior executives had deep qualms about conduct that they are now seeking to defend. And as the company reels amid a scandal over improper outside data collection on its users, the memo shows that one senior executive — one of Zuckerberg’s longest-serving deputies — prioritized all-encompassing growth over all else, a view that has led to questionable data collection and manipulative treatment of its users. You can read the full post below. Facebook was unable to provide comment at the time of publication.
(Note: the article title in the website is "Growth At Any Cost: Top Facebook Executive Defended Data Collection In 2016 Memo — And Warned That Facebook Could Get People Killed" but its different in the embed)
Facebook vanishing would only be a net societal positive.
It would damage a lot of people's income by basically deleting their entire contact book. They grew too large for that.
It's very stupid to have all of your contacts on one site either way so I mean
Welcome to the 21st century, your never-ending source for techno-ethical quandaries.
It's a bit of a stretch to call it dumb when most of the time there's just no way around. People can be absolutely stubborn and you'll still need to deal with them to work.
I don't see how this is possible. There are other ways to maintain contacts that aren't being held on the cloud.
There being other methods doesn't mean people will actually use them, though. Work with older people for long enough and you'll know how much of a pain in the ass it is to tell people "not to trust on a single point of failure" when it requires them to learn/use something different.
This idea that you'll literally lose your entire professional contact book if facebook died out just seems unrealistic
For one it wouldn't exactly die quickly so you could back them up
And not only that but if your work contacts aren't using email, idk what the fuck is up with them, that just seems absurd.
I mean, it gets really bad for people who work with arts and crafts, where the majority of their customer base will engage with their business through facebook/messenger.
If they're only doing it through one platform then I don't think I'd want to work with them anyways, if they're that much of a trouble about it, tbh
Is the sarcastic little act necessary, or do you simply take pleasure from being an ass and feeling superior?
But still, what else would you have in place of facebook? Google+? WhatsApp (which is owned by facebook, and is the de-facto tool for communication nowadays)? There's no "net positive" if there's no change, there needs to be more done to solve the underlying problem of these companies having too much free reign over what data they can collect and analyze/sell, a witch hunt like this will only accomplish a vacant throne for someone else to take over.
Can't wait for people to give more control over to google instead of actually discussing the issue at hand, it's not like they don't own everything from your TV Streaming devices to the phones in your pocket, it's not like they collect your every step and are constantly asking for more and more data right.
[quote=Johnny on Flame]But still, what else would you have in place of facebook? Google+? WhatsApp (which is owned by facebook, and is the de-facto tool for communication nowadays)? There's no "net positive" if there's no change, there needs to be more done to solve the underlying problem of these companies having too much free reign over what data they can collect and analyze/sell, a witch hunt like this will only accomplish a vacant throne for someone else to take over.[/quote]
You're right that that is the right way to go about it
but under the current administration, and considering how hard pressed facebook is to do this shit, what do you propose 'is done to solve' the issue? Republicans don't give a fuck and the Democrats don't either. This is something that needs an active push against that is very aggressive. We're seeing investigations that may very well assist the problem a little bit, but I very very much doubt that anything truly remarkable will be done to solve this issue
To be honest, if you have professional contacts, you use something far more private or intimate such as email or phones to begin with.
As well, you'll recover. If you supplied a good service, they will find where you are. Facebook shouldn't be stopped from collapsing because it may hurt people. It should be shut down if they're grossly malicious with their data on us that we were told to trust them with.
They have repeatidly violated that contract, so ya'know what? Fuck them. I'm sorry for someone losing out on money, but personal control of your privacy and interactions with third parties is paramount over utility and convenience.
I can't offer you a silver bullet, there is none. What I can do, and what I actively do is bring the issue up with everyone I can whenever it is possible to do so without sounding like the raving lunatic people think I am, usually by showing historical data and news articles from reputable sources about companies abusing their governance and their overreach when it comes to the data they collect from you, and even then, the average person will usually just shrug it off with the usual stuff like "I've got nothing to hide! I'm an open book!" or "What are they going to do, steal my beach selfies?" without understanding the sort of grasp these companies have.
Big Data affords waaay too much power to these companies, and it's hard to talk about it without sounding like a character out of Call of Cthulu.
If your primary contact with people is through paid invasive ventures, you screwed up somewhere.
So it's better that the website is allowed to openly socially engineer people to pay ads, right?
