Someone should print this out on a huge sign at the hearing...
I mean, that message is completely accurate. If you're mad that your data got used, why did you post it publicly on a website whose sole forms of monetization revolve around advertising and peddling of personal information?
This use was very clearly outlined in the TOS. Too bad you didn't read it.
True but it also clearly shows his true opinions re: users privacy
His true opinions were literally never hidden
people are mad because they got fucking played like a fiddle and now, instead of realizing that it's their fault, they're reaching for someone to blame.
FaceBook existed because people absolutely love sharing every single intimate detail of their lives with the entire planet. As it turns out, this is abusable. This should have been apparent to every user of the site the second they logged in and didn't see banner ads.
Even if you read every line of the TOS, it wouldn't matter because Cambridge Analytica obtained data through a violation of that TOS by Alexander Kogan, and the issue is that FB knew about that violation for two and a half years but didn't alert any users about it or start making any real changes until it became public through the press.
Fifteen years ago websites advised you to never use your real name or to spread other personal info online publically.
Compare that the internet to today.
it's totally irrelevant how "apparent" it was that facebook was going to abuse people's openness
like, sure people shouldn't give their money to zimbabwean princes, or to people pretending to be from microsoft: but that doesn't stop it from being fraud
people shouldn't leave their cars in public places with bad lighting and no cameras, but that doesn't stop it from being theft if that car is stolen
it's irrelevant if "people trusted facebook with their data (against better judgment)", that data was illegally shared with no oversight - there is very obviously someone to blame here, and that's Facebook (and Cambridge Analytica)
I never said it was moral. I just don't see how morals apply to legal proceedings. I hate Mark Zuckerberg. I think he's a spineless weenie with a power fantasy, so he obtained that power in the only way he knew how. But I can't understand the outrage at "failure to protect data" that is literally public.
Serious question, how would you stop people from scraping data on a platform designed to be open?
The only way to do so is to make people separate from the data they generate. Obfuscated identities that remain obfuscated unless you're in a position of explicit trust with someone else. Doesn't completely stop scraping - but it does limit it quite a lot and requires much more work and access to get the same sorts of info.
Do you really think that that is even remotely reasonable for a social media network to do?
If you did that, it would be impossible to tell who anybody is, and nobody would use the service.
Facebook exists because people want to make all that data public.
You asked for a serious solution. It is a serious solution - it's just not a very profitable one.
A solution isn't a solution if it isn't viable, though.
Remember, I'm talking about what Zuckerberg could have been reasonably expected to do, not what would just fix the problem without considering the circumstances.
CEO says Facebook will impose new EU privacy rules “everywhere” ..
Zucc claims they are going to roll out the same data protections passed by the EU globally. Who knows when or if they'll follow through though.
We are talking about the company who, in response to data being stolen and contracts being violated, stuck by the 'honor system' and just pretended that people stopped doing it.
The solution is serious enough; viability isn't as strong a factor here as it ought be - but we do have to consider the company involved with making the ultimate determination on whether something is viable or not.
What Zuckerberg could have reasonably expected to do would be to kick those people off the platform after ordering and supervising the destruction of the ill-gotten gains and/or suing them for contract violation and abuse of their platform. But he's not a reasonable man.
If only Google+ had waited until now to launch.
Another social network taking Facebook's crown was a ridiculous idea a few years ago, but right now is prime time for somebody to step in and leverage the situation
If anyone was smart they'd never sign up for another social network ever again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
