• "I am sorry": Zuckerberg faces congressional inquisition
    64 replies, posted
The issue is that often, these twch gurus/moguls are socially awkward or hate people so a lot their tech ous designed around gathering around people you want to be around and deafening out others.
https://www.wired.com/story/cambridge-analytica-private-facebook-messages/
https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/983779936040357889?s=19
maybe he just has really bad hemorrhoids. let's check his facebook to find out
"I'm sorry... I got caught"
why is data from star trek testifying? what did he do wrong??
he's 5'7? Wow they've done a good job, every picture I see of him he looks like a 6'5 lizard man
Right I've not been aboard the "Zuckerberg is a robot" train before but all these clips I'm seeing are getting me onboard pretty fast. The slight pause and the fact every brief sentence starts with "Senator", it's like he's playing a word game https://twitter.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/983788007990837248?s=09
He has invisible eyebrows
Our gallant young CEO has been struck down in his prime https://twitter.com/cspan/status/983837085999255553?s=09
This, my parents went from having 80K a year to 30K during the economic crash. During their time recovering I was helping money wise with my part time job and did anything to give money. Now they both have their old jobs back, and its suddenly everyone else's fault they are poor (including me). Or how they pulled themselves out of poverty so everyone else should be able to too. This is all a load of horse shit because the only reason they got back on their feet and fell off their horse is because both rely on the housing market for their income. It sets off something in your head that you are 100% deserving of what you got because you got the good side of the coin. If you got the bad side, that's your fault (almost like zucc saying its people's fault for trusting him with their information). Hence most people who pull the "pull yourself up with your bootstraps" shit are vastly rich and couldn't give a shit if you can or cant do it.
At least I can still trust my good friend Bonzibuddy to not sell my info to advertisers.
Serious question, how do you look at a free website that says "WE WILL SELL YOUR DATA", and that website is essentially an interactive build-your-own-demographic workshop, and think "My data won't be seen by anybody but my friends here!" Even if they weren't selling API keys or even doing anything at all to make the data easier to access, you'd still have crawlers scraping that thing left right and center and they'd be unstoppable.
its like one giant roast
Majority of people didn't expect their data to be used to attack family members with propaganda, while FB got a kick back and said "no, please, stop"
This isn't what happened. FB knew that the data was being shared outside of the original acquirer, they did not know it was being used by Cambridge for the purposes it was being used for. Honestly, how would you not expect non-anonymous personal data to not be used by any schmuck that wanted it, for any purpose that they wanted? The fact that literally anyone can walk up and browse your profile should be the biggest indicator that, well, it's public. You literally cannot protect data that is public record other than hoping that security through obscurity ("Nobody would do that to *me*") would work.
Just to point out: Specifically data which was marked as private or friends-only was also shared. People would reasonably expect that if something is marked as 'private' that it, you know, remains private. Especially when FB states 'you own all of the content you put on Facebook' which should include that if I mark something as private that it is specifically only shared between myself and whomever is allowed in my 'private circle' - not random Facebook API devs. Further, Zuckerberg himself stated they knew it was being used for the purposes it was used for and admitted they could have banned CA from the service but chose not to. He also, himself, provided various ways through which they proposed they would protect that data when ill-gotten, despite not having done so in the case of CA because... well, just because it 'slipped through the cracks'. FB reviewed and agreed, first and foremost, the license agreement that the guy who sold CA the data he scraped put together. In that license agreement he specifically called out that FB would give him permission to sell the data he scraped. That's yet another way they could've protected data from being sold off -- refusing to agree to contracts wherein the developer states they have the right to sell data they scrape.
That's a pretty good point for the scraping point; however This is countered by the TOS, and This is for the purpose of saying that you own the content, not the data. It's there to let content creators who upload videos, music, photos, whatever straight to Facebook that Facebook can't can't make a claim that they are the ones that actually own the content and that the copyright is not yours. Honestly, I'm not sure why this wasn't the correct response. At the time, the breadth and impact of Cambridge Analytica was likely not known, there's an extremely high chance that they appeared extremely similar to everyone else on the "possible TOS violation" pile and that they then made their use non-obvious after being called out. I known someone who got booted off of graph API, it's not hard to do. If they say that it "slipped through the cracks" then I'm inclined to believe them due to their size and how CA appears to just be another marketer (albeit, one for campaigns) on the surface. What economic incentive do they have to do this? Yeah, as a user (not of this service, but in general) I like the idea, but look at it from Facebook's point of view. Why would they deny those requests? As far as I know, that's covered by the privacy policy. I'm watching it piece by piece, watching that goddamn robot person for more than ten minutes at a time gives me anxiety.
....and? you're not really putting any arguments forward. all you're doing is saying "well people should've known" and patting yourself in the back for it. maybe they should've. but the reality is that they didn't. are you really as superior as you're trying to make yourself seem, when you fail this hard at recognizing that humans aren't always rational actors, and that the layman's understanding of data usage isn't at the same level as yours? are you really getting anything done when, instead of using the opportunity to expand that understanding, you can only bring yourself to mock it?
I'm not patting myself on the back? I'm not trying to make myself seem superior either, lmao, what are you on about? I'm not mocking anybody either. Seriously, what are you talking about? When people are making claims that facebook is "Stealing" "private" data and the usage of that non-private data was clearly outline in the Terms of Service, that's worth pointing out. Not because they're stupid, but because getting extremely furious at a service that did exactly what it said it was going to do is extremely silly. If your ass got bit because you didn't read the TOS or privacy policy or even one of the many summaries posted by other people, maybe you should have read it. Alternatively, decide that the service is worth more to you than that data, and use it.
"I'm sorry I got caught."
It looks like Zuckerberg has 'won' https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-fb-stock-zuckerberg-speech-in-washington.html https://www.apnews.com/1d355c62a2984f78be2c1b025f9a2dc3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics
How do you look at the CEO of a company talking to the Senate and think "shit man I best buy more stocks"
How
This thinking is exactly how it happened
loving the fact that they don't even hide the fact that the ultra rich are law proofat this point
I feel like none of you actually watched any of the testimony (I had it running in the background yesterday while working and had about three hours of it finish). Zuckerberg cleared up the misconception in regards to user data. Your data is never given to advertisers. Advertisers approach Facebook to run an add, they tell Facebook what demographic they want to target, and then Facebook internally runs the advertisement using the data that they have of you (because, y'know, it's their service so they have your data when you use it). Your data is never seen by the advertisers.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107007/ddbd54f4-6b8a-402f-8d8b-2ade9623dd06/c46a9be.jpg They sure isn't
No shkreli got the backhand but in this case all the senators were investigating something far beyond their realm of understanding. Yeah Zuckerberg is an asshole but he has an uncanny knack for covering it.
I mean, you and I would probably be answering the exact same way if we were before a committee of old people who didn't understand how the internet works. Just the wrong slip up could hurt him, everything he says will be used against him and so on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.