
Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation - aaronbrethorst
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html
======
fooey
There's breaking reporting that Facebook _just_ had personnel in the Cambridge
Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants.

[https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121](https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121)

> BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now
> "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information
> Commissioner's Office..

[https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552...](https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552?s=19)

> To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK
> authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office
> cracking whip...British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US
> multibillion $ company.....

Something VERY wrong is going on at Facebook.

edit, with another account:

[https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272](https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272)

> Facebook have confirmed that auditors and legal counsel acting on behalf of
> the company were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica this evening until
> they were told to stand down by the Information Commissioner. These
> investigations need to be undertaken by the proper authorities

~~~
zilchers
I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully
behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so
difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I
don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too
close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

~~~
fooey
Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's
business model working as intended.

~~~
RpFLCL
This fact has me more confused than anything.

What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked
away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by
political entities should have been especially obvious.

Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago.
I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the
personality profiles. [1?] However, it was open about CA optaining the data
via the survey. (I'll provide a link as soon as I dig it up again). Suddenly,
months later, this story is exploding in media and political rhetoric.

It makes me wonder if this isn't more about a concerted effort to force
regulations to give someone control over these platforms?

After seeing what happened in the 2016 elections around the world, I'd imagine
many people became interested in ensuring social media would work for them
next time around.

[1] [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-
self/e/5231252...](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-
self/e/52312529) (not -the- podcast I was trying to find, but still has the
info as far back as November)

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months
> ago.

Minor nit: Years ago.

The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at
least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting
[1].

Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for
_years_ and it fell upon deaf ears.

Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't understand what changed.

[1]: [https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-
revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-
trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-
entrap-politicians-investigation)

~~~
magnusss
Nothing changed. What happened in many of these cases (Weinstein, Facebook) is
that the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of
professional journalists working for the New York Times.

My only point (if there is one) is that, despite the massive proliferation of
blogs and amateur media, it often takes a professional, salaried reporter to
bring an important story into the public eye.

~~~
briandear
> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of
> professional journalists working for the New York Times

No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took
their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat
party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news
outlets.

The "professional" journalists working for the NY Times KNEW about the
Weinstein story as far back as 2004, but spiked it under pressure from various
Hollywood interests. Professional journalists aren't supposed to spike stories
for political reasons and that's exactly that the Times did in 2004.

Weinstein's office in Tribeca was right downstairs from the Tribeca Film
offices. It was on the 3rd floor. Spend a few hours in that building and you
could probably have heard a dozen stories in whispered tones about Harvey.
Some professional journalist from the NY Times should have had this story
years ago. A high school journalist could have written this! And Kevin Spacey?
Anyone who in Hollywood would have known about Spacey as far back as 2004, or
perhaps earlier. It was an "open" secret. So open that it was a joke. It
started becoming more "known" when Spacey was working with Sam Mendes on
American Beauty in 1999.

Give me a fucking break. Professional journalists sat on this story, ignored
it or conspired to crush it. It took a rookie, Ronan Farrow, trying to make a
name for himself while on a personal mission against that horrible abuser
Woody Allen for this to all break.

[https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/russell-crowe-
ma...](https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/russell-crowe-matt-damon-
helped-spike-a-weinstein-expose-in-2004-former-nyt-journalist-
claims-20171010-gyxkn4.html)

~~~
mistermann
And yet, almost everyone continues to insist that the system is more or less
clean, even though it is blatantly obvious news and politics is lies and
propaganda from top to bottom.

Bring on the smug downvotes boys, but until all media, social networks, and
the overall internet can be brought _completely_ under government control, it
will continue because there is simply too much criminal activity going on
everywhere.

~~~
daddosi
Quality authors afiliated to prominent prestigious publishers printed on the
finest cloths imaginable. Not only were their words and the patterns
extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing
property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid.

------
oflannabhra
My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers
and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s vision does
not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect
people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that
was heretofore impossible.

Between Facebook’s political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of
its use, I think it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that Facebook is a
net negative for society. This is without even taking into account the amount
of PII that has been concentrated into a single entity (who monetizes it), or
the effects of algorithmically appealing to people’s desires.

A hundred years from now, Equifax, YouTube, and Facebook will be lumped into
the same pile: companies who profit off of information about consumers. The
algorithmic veneer that protects YouTube and Facebook will be gone by then.

I’m not trying to condemn anyone, and I’m not in the position of having to
weigh providing for my family with making ethical choices.

But, I think it is clear that change for Facebook will not come from the top.
It will only come as people leave.

~~~
mancerayder
I don't disagree with these sentiments, but the hope that engineers/IT staff
will leave is wishful thinking. I speak from my own experience which my differ
from others in other industries/regions/countries but, I find people who work
in tech to be generally dispassionate with regards to the downstream effects
of their contributions. I think that's because:

a) We're often small cogs ...

b) ... working on often interesting technical problems that require much
detail ("think down here" I was once told by a manager, who put his hand to
the ground, "not up here" he said putting his hand up and waving it[1]) ...

c) ... and we don't always get to choose. Not everyone is a superstar who can
leisurely choose which exciting opportunity to pick and choose. And yes, most
of us have rent/mortgages/children/ other obligations to concern ourselves
with.

...even if we aren't necessarily all amoral.

1 Luckily I outlasted him in that company. :-)

~~~
sgustard
I think the reason is (d), that most employees believe in the company's
mission and do not think they are working for an unethical company, but
instead that the company is being unfairly portrayed.

~~~
mancerayder
Most in Facebook or most in general in tech companies? If the latter, I'd bet
my life that most people couldn't care less about visions or missions, which
is more the realm of Founders, very young employees and marketing materials.
I'm sorry to state it that harshly...

------
minimaxir
Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over
the past few days about CA with heated discussions:

> I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were
> factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312)

Archive of those deleted tweets:
[https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680](https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680)

EDIT: Stamos responds to news:

> Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's
> true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring
> emerging security risks and working on election security.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

~~~
danso
Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It
seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that
there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without
oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge
Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different
stating it as an official policy.

~~~
chatmasta
Translation, "I pissed off my boss"

~~~
ams6110
If he's leaving anyway why would he really care?

~~~
kchoudhu
Stock options.

------
evgen
While it is buried in the article, an interesting data point that I noticed as
a former alum of the team is that the FB security team has apparently been
picked apart and divided up between the prod and infra orgs. Being able to
stand apart from these two massively powerful entities within FB and tell them
when they were screwing up had been one of the moderating influences between
the desire of the prod team for 'increase engagement, fuck privacy', and the
desire of the infra team for 'move fast, screw safety.' This will not end
well...

~~~
eganist
It also relieves Facebook of any sufficiently necessary capability to surveil,
centralize, and manage risk.

Given the firm's susceptibility to GDPR and its newfound position under the
microscope of a series of international criminal and counter intelligence
investigations, this would seem objectively to be the wrong move.

------
whoisjuan
Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's response to all these events has been the weakest
and lamest that I have ever seen from any leadership, regarding controversial
issues that involve a company of this size...and that's hard to beat when you
have the likes of BP and Volkswagen... Do they really think that just ignoring
the issue will make the problem go away?

~~~
ams6110
When have they really ever had their feet held to a fire on a controversial
issue? Zuckerberg is still a pretty young guy, despite his position and all
he's done he's still inexperienced in some things. Ever since he started
Facebook things have pretty much gone his way. Maybe he just doesn't
instinctively know what to do.

~~~
baq
In which case he knows exactly what to do, which is shut up. There's nothing
he can say right now that will make things better.

~~~
marshray
My guess is he's been cognizant of the magnitude of this disaster all along.

This is why he had been getting his picture taken driving tractors. It was an
act of image management, not because he planned to run for office.

------
bogomipz
>"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
operating officer..."

This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this
individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that
Chapter 6 of Sandberg's very successful book "Lean In" is titled "Seek and
Speak the Truth."[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In)

edit COO

~~~
mathattack
Her conference room is also called “Only Good News”

------
dirtyhand
CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and
sex workers to entrap politicians.

[https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-
revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-
trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-
entrap-politicians-investigation)

~~~
iliketosleep
wow.. that's the most damning report i've ever seen on how politics is
manipulated in this modern age.

------
mattnewton
On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a
breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. It’s like a
lock manufacturer wanting to let everyone know that the customer had the door
open, and their locks weren’t broken.

But in this case, he wasn’t just a lock manufacturer, he was in charge of
security for the home.

I can’t help but think of Steve Jobs parable of the Janitor and the Vice
President[0]. Reasons stop mattering at his level. Part of the job was to
convince Facebook that these permissions were bad for privacy.

Stamos likely knows this. To me, it looks like he resigned when he realized he
couldn’t persuade the other executives of things like this.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-
difference-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-
between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5)

~~~
dglass
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the word "breach" is reserved for
specific security incidents that fall above a certain threshold. Something
like if X amount of users were affected it must be considered a breach, which
means the company must alert the authorities and alert all users who have been
affected.

If he's saying it wasn't a breach it's probably because it doesn't fit the
actual criteria for considering something a breach, but doesn't mean he's
trying to downplay the severity of what happened.

Edit: difference between a data breach vs. a security incident -
[https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-
essentials/whats-t...](https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-
essentials/whats-the-difference-between-a-data-breach-and-a-security-incident)

------
Twisell
> Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the
> company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal
> with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former
> employees briefed on the matter.

This opening sentence is frightening, I would rather have learned that FB
executive disagree about how to deal with FB "role in ___NOT_ __spreading
disinformation "

~~~
tootie
FB is big enough to have developed factions and I can totally see Zuck not
being up to the task of controlling them.

~~~
make3
lol he's still 100% responsible, as he chose the people who chose them, and is
responsible for the culture.

------
danso
> _He has been overseeing the transfer of his security team to Facebook’s
> product and infrastructure divisions. His group, which once had 120 people,
> now has three, the current and former employees said._

So with Stamos's departure/resignation, Facebook will have also reorganized
its structure to not have a dedicated security team? Or at least one at the
same level in the hierarchy as product and infrastructure?

~~~
eganist
This would be the correct way to read it is my impression. They've essentially
folded their centralized technical risk management apparatus.

------
ggg9990
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems almost cute how strongly the DOJ went
after Microsoft in the ‘90s, when they were just victimizing competitors
rather than destabilizing democracies.

------
robbiet480
"Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's
true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring
emerging security risks and working on election security." 2 minutes ago

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

~~~
tptacek
Note that doesn't contradict the NYT story, which claims that he essentially
gave 8 months notice in December, which he would now be ~3 months into.

~~~
Mahn
Makes you wonder why are they running this story now then. Hell of an
interesting timing, almost as if to fit a narrative.

~~~
tptacek
Probably because they just learned about it? Doesn't seem all that
complicated.

~~~
eganist
If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if the CA revelations led current staff
to speak out to the press to make the internal division known. Alex is pretty
effective as a leader; I'd be shocked if the vast majority of his team, if not
his entire team, did not have his back on this.

------
mhneu
Stamos has weighed in on twitter:

>Alex Stamos >Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at
Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time
exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.
[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

>To be clear, the security team has never been prevented or discouraged from
investigating any Russian activity by any executives. >Josh Sternberg >The NYT
reporting that Facebook Chief Information Security Officer, Alex Stamos,
leaving the company. He lost the debate to Sandberg and other execs on
investigating and disclosing Russian activity. …

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680)

The question in my mind is - what's the real story? You don't go from a team
of 120 to a team of 3 for no reason, and Stamos hasn't denied that reporting.

------
JumpCrisscross
"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook , often to the consternation of
other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked
not to be identified discussing internal matters."

------
rrdharan
I guess this had already been brewing for a while:

"After his day-to-day responsibilities were reassigned to others in December,
Mr. Stamos said he would leave... He was persuaded to stay through August to
oversee the transition... executives thought his departure would look bad".

------
driverdan
I'd love to hear what current FB employees have to say about this. Why do you
continue working for FB?

~~~
Tepix
Perhaps a healthy dose of Fuck You money?

------
spydum
Didn't he also leave yahoo for practically the same reason?

~~~
mtgx
Kind of, and it's why I liked him initially. But with every Facebook screwup
and his _defense_ of that screwup with bogus excuses (possibly directly from
Zuckerberg, but irrelevant), I gradually started losing my respect for him,
just like I've lost my respect for Carmack. Carmack could have been working
for SpaceX and living his biggest dream (working on space stuff), but instead
he's wasting his time and potential in a democracy-destroying company like
Facebook.

History will not be kind to those that continue to help or defend Facebook to
keep its influence in the world and power.

------
BinaryIdiot
> Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating
> and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of
> other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief
> operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked
> not to be identified discussing internal matters.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. He was for disclosing this information
which ostracized him from the other executives who don't seem to care at all
in regard to how their data is used as long as they profit from it.

~~~
Varcht
The injustice!.

~~~
matt4077
It’s right there in the quote: “...according to the current and former
employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters“.

And before you criticize anonymous sources: that’s how journalism works. The
publication, the New York Times in this case, takes on the risk to its
reputation on behalf of their sources to allow information from unauthorized
sources to become public.

Edit: editing your post to erase your embarrassing ineptitude to read (and to
make the people correcting you seem foolish) seems kinda assholish.

------
tzakrajs
Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.

~~~
spydum
I mean, maybe that's true, but I'm not entirely certain it's a fair
assessment. Yahoo and Facebook are arguably some of the largest targets
(different eras of course). Being a CISO at both and _not getting fired from
either_ are huge achievements, given the CISO is generally a sacrificial role
(largely ignored when done right, and beheaded if something goes wrong,
regardless of your actions).

So either way, he picks hard jobs. The question is, does he truly step down
when he feels he's got no remaining option to protest (which is quite
respectable IMHO).. or is he simply outmaneuvering the board when his spidey
senses tell him they are about to drop the axe because of recent corporate
sins? Either way, style points for both I'd say.

~~~
tzakrajs
I will stop short of calling him Machiavellian, but he sure does have
convenient timing. Great points!

------
rhombocombus
It sounds like the COO and CEO view the spreading of disinformation as a
feature of the site.

------
utopcell
When Stamos left Yahoo, I assumed it was because of the leaked accounts
information. I wonder if he saw similar compromises at Facebook that were not
disclosed.

------
propman
Why can't we legislate regulations on Facebook, like Europe is set to do?
They've already done the hard work by laying down the groundwork.

~~~
zer00eyz
For the same reason the US was the one who brought FIFA to court. It is easier
if an "outsider" makes the first move.

------
ekanes
Leaving FB? Exporting all your posts/data is easy: Login > little arrow at
top-right > Settings > "Download a copy of your Facebook Data"

~~~
raverbashing
This is gold. Because it shows you info that's not accessible through the
interface, like whom you unfriended or who unfriended you.

It even shows which advertisers have your info.

------
owly
My hope is this will prompt people to delete their Facebook data (as much as
they can now) and then their accounts...

------
icpmacdo
Stamos's response

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

------
knodi
I think its time to ditch Facebook.

------
mancerayder
I'm reposting just this link from another (my) comment below, because I find
it incredibly relevant and insightful to anyone who wants to understand how
adtech, news and Facebook combined programmatically to create a divisive (but
catchy) morass of news:

[https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-
feeds-e86511...](https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-
feeds-e86511488de)

------
maneesh
Hmm just posted by @alexstamos:

“Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's
true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring
emerging security risks and working on election security.”

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=2...](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=21)

------
msangi
Update from his twitter account:

> Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's
> true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring
> emerging security risks and working on election security.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

------
AzzieElbab
One day a team of talented psychiatrists will explain how a group of people
who spend countless hours by solving "freind-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" types of
puzzles for living can act in shock and awe over this "data breach"

------
tomohawk
collusion with more politicos

[https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-
director-f...](https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/)

------
yAnonymous
What gets me is that people are usually ok with stuff like this until it's
being used to promote ideas they don't support.

------
trhway
well, somebody is going to be scapegoated at FB when FB's attempt to push full
weight of the blame squarely on CA fails. And Security Chief i think wouldn't
be a bad scapegoat ... I expect some other high people also to leave to avoid
being made to take one for the team.

------
Dangeranger
Alex Stamos claims to not be leaving Facebook as reported.

[https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433)

------
fermienrico
What does it mean when they say "Stood Down"?

------
IBM
Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?

~~~
mikeyouse
Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue,
leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of
success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn’t really a C-Level position. They usually
report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two
levels below what the “real” execs are.

You’ll notice he isn’t listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include
their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing
Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel.

That tells you a bit about how important tech companies really think security
is. In fact you will often find the head of HR among that group before you’ll
see a CSO.

It doesn’t matter though, as it’s incredibly rare for a CSO to actually know
anything about security. Stamos is an exception. I’d wager that you can likely
count the number of CSOs who have ever written an exploit on one hand.

~~~
wglb
Often not true. I've always advocated that the CSO report to the CEO, and that
is how it came to be. I was listed on the exec page, and the current CSO is
now as well.

Not reporting to the CEO is a mistake.

------
supergirl
of all the 1000s of companies collecting user data, the full focus of the
world is now on this one? why is that?

~~~
zer00eyz
Because they have a lot of data. Because they leak like a submarine diving
with its hatches open. Because they have a history of being scummy.

Google could find it self in the same boat.

Technologys hydras are as dangerous as the mythical ones.

------
TAForObvReasons
People have been openly complaining about sexual impropriety in Hollywood for
decades. There were comedic references to Harvey Weinstein [1] and Kevin
Spacey [2] in shows like 30 Rock and Family Guy. Suddenly people started
caring. What changed was the cultural moment of the 2016 election.
Specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Mueller investigation
may have taken a turn towards them in recent months.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU)

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> Suddenly people started caring.

Yes, but _why?_ And why now, rather than years/decades ago?

There's another layer to these stories that I'm very interested in.

~~~
ionforce
Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an
early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.

------
hueving
>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of
Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists.

This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise
a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

~~~
dictum
"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our
stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend,
believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends
its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re
not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and
they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re
bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 _Some_ (qualified with the half-hearted _I assume_ ) is pretty much the
opposite of _the overwhelming majority_.

[http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-
speech/](http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/)

~~~
jjeaff
"they're rapists" doesn't make sense here. I'll bet 100 to 1 he said "their
rapists".

------
tzakrajs
Time for Facebook to pivot, and pivot quickly they must.

edit: Daniel Ive of GBH Insights supports this notion: “Changes to their
business model around advertising and news feeds/content could be in store
over the next 12 to 18 months,” Ives wrote in a note to investors.
[http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-
fall/](http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/)

------
chapill
I don't believe this story. The same Alex Stamos who did

[http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-
RCE.php](http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php)

Suddenly he's so concerned about transparency he's leaving over it? This
report seems very fishy. All the sources are "according to current and former
employees." Not one person willing to go on record?

------
downandout
I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for
Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed
their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate
lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they
_attempted_ to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they
were successful in changing the outcome.

I admire his devotion to his candidate, and for trying to find an explanation
for her defeat. But sometimes the correct explanation is the simplest one: she
was just unpalatable to many voters. Deal with it, and spend your energy
finding a better candidate next time, rather than trying to blame Russia or
Facebook for influencing even a single vote, which likely did not happen.

~~~
weirdstuff
This is the elephant in the room. U.S. based interests spent _billions_ to
influence public opinion here and abroad.

But less than $1 million spent by a Russia media organization (to maybe
attract viewers?) and some trolls tossed the election? I’m more than
skeptical.

This is a distraction campaign if here ever was one.

~~~
netsharc
Well, that's what makes Cambridge Analytica so good, they have the data, and
they're cheap. They just needed to target undecided voters in swing states,
and through trawling Facebook data, they knew which voters to influence, and
how to influence them, because they also have their psychological profiles.
And how do you target them? By posting Facebook ads where you define your
"target market" so narrowly that it basically hits individuals.

~~~
jimsmart
Actually, I suspect what makes Cambridge Analytica "so good" is that (big data
aside) it was revealed just today: they use bribes and sex workers to entrap
politicians, amongst other illegal techniques...

[https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-
revealed-t...](https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-
trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-
entrap-politicians-investigation)

