Facebook–while it apologizes for scandal–funds campaign to block CA data-privacy - dvlsh
======
dang
A post like this, with no article attached, is editorializing. That's the last
thing we need on a red-hot topic that has been dominating HN for over a week
now. It's an important topic, of course, and that makes it more important to
have substantive content grounding the discussions. Please don't submit like
this again.

People sometimes do this by mistake when posting an article but since web
search doesn't come up with anything for this title other than this HN page,
I'm interpreting this submission as abuse rather than a trivial error. Sorry
if I've sounded harsh, but this is one trend we really don't need to get
going.

------
vowelless
Why are people surprised by all this? I am seriously confused. We _know_
corporations do this. We have protested about Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big
Tobacco, etc in the past. Why are we surprised Big Tech is doing the exact
same thing?

A lot of these tech companies had revolving doors with the ruling
administration of the country for 8 years. They have been deeply embroiled in
politics for decades. Ironically, Microsoft circa late 1990s serves as a great
lesson when you _don 't_ have a revolving door with politicians. In my humble
opinion, Shkreli is another example of people who didn't kiss the Godfather's
hand.

If you got duped by "Don't be evil" or the other "make the world a better
place" propaganda by these tech companies, some of the _biggest_ companies
this world has ever seen -- then that is on your ignorance. I don't blame Big
Tech at all. They will (and _should_ ) use the same formula as the other Big
Corps for their own self interests. That is what our system requires of them,
for better or for worse. We as citizens and consumers should have been
vigilant. And to be fair, many on HN have _always_ been vigilant about Big
Tech.

In my opinion, people have no right to criticize FB or Google today if they
did not feel a chill run down their spines after Snowden's leaks or after
AaronSw's death.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _people have no right to criticize FB or Google_

I’ve never understood the phrase “X has no right to Y.” In this context, it’s
doubly absurd. Americans have a right. A Constitutional right. The very first
one in the Bill of Rights.

Users quibbling at Facebook is negotiation (albeit ineffectively done). Voters
complaining via political channels is activism, a First Amendment right.

~~~
vowelless
I know you want to quibble _part_ of that one sentence. Let me help you read
the full sentence / context so that you can see the deeper point, in case you
missed it.

If you read the full context, I said "in my opinion ...", and not "according
to American constitutional law ...".

I am using the word "right" in the "moral" sense of the word, and not the
"legal" sense of the word (and you can look up the definition of the word
"right" if you prefer).

Now, perhaps, you can look at the entire context of that sentence and give
address the actual point I was trying to make.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I am using the word "right" in the "moral" sense of the word_

Calling legal, Constitutionally-protected political protest immoral because
someone "did not feel a chill run down their spines after Snowden's leaks"
isn't better.

Jumping up to your original comment [1]:

> _Why are people surprised by all this?_

It's novel. Specific beats abstract, actual beats hypothetical, relatable
beats austere. In Cambridge Analytica we have a specific example of Facebook
dropping the ball and creating actual consequences relatable to the average
American.

Americans love to forgive. We wanted to see Zuckerberg acknowledge the issue,
take responsibility and overcorrect. (Think: Tylenol [2].) Instead Zuckerberg
disappeared for a few days, apologized like he was making a scripted sales
pitch [3] and proceeded to do nothing tangibly evident to the average
American. Seeing Facebook lie and cheat so brazenly, in respect of a specific,
actual and relatable crisis, was novel for many people.

We're also seeing a narrative shift. Facebook once lived in the shadow of
Steve Jobs, within Silicon Valley's greater story arc and the myth of the
founder. (Think: HBO's _Silicon Valley_ [4].) They were allowed to cut corners
as the product of a goofy if influential wunderkid. That's shifting. Shifts
surprise. There is no need to throw people under the bus for agreeing later
rather than sooner--at the end of the day, agreement is what matters.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685315](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16685315)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6DOhioBfyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6DOhioBfyY)

[4] [https://www.hbo.com/silicon-valley](https://www.hbo.com/silicon-valley)

------
vijaybritto
Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US? For me, it looks like it
always benefits the companies and the politicians. Lobbying is illegal in many
countries. Why is it allowed there? Under what thoughts? Can someone explain,
please?

EDIT: Quickly checked Google. An Investopedia article argues that it's not
bribery because it benefits everyone in the country. But we can see that it's
always so that the companies make more money right? Only the rich keep getting
more money. Also, the article seems to have been written by a lobbying
enthusiast!

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Is lobbying really helpful for the people in the US?_

The EFF [1] and ACLU [2] are lobbyists. We have a problem in the U.S. with
money and politics, but lobbying _per se_ is a natural consequence of the
First Amendmenr.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundati...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Uni...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union)

~~~
vijaybritto
The examples of EFF and ACLU are okay and I'm pretty sure that there are
hundreds of well intended lobbying groups in the US. But, I'm often confused
by the lack of control or checks for private players with a lot of money like
for example, Intuit which blocks easy tax return filing, NRA which blocks gun
control/ban, Facebook which blocks privacy bill, etc., There must be so many
other examples that an outsider like me cannot comprehend or understand. So
how come this is allowed without any protest? It looks like the first
amendment is being used to disguise crony capitalism!

~~~
neltnerb
Yes, it is hard to explain. Something about those companies employee
shareholders individually having free speech rights via the company that they
own. It was a recent change.

I don't really mind companies lobbying for things, I suspect that it has more
good than bad from open lines of communication of needs from the business
community. But the balance has to be right. It shouldn't be one company
drowning out a million people.

The NRA is at least made up of real human members. Who shockingly donated $85M
to them in since 2005. I may dislike their point of view, but they certainly
deserve to be able to lobby.

~~~
vijaybritto
People get killed in thousands because of them. I'm not sure if they should
enjoy this kind of a freedom!

------
hlecuanda
Here is the actual measure and explanation:
[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Informa...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Consumer_Personal_Information_Disclosure_and_Sale_Initiative_\(2018\))

And yes, I agree FB should keep their distance from opposing this initiative
or lobbying against it. In fact, Equifax et al would probably be affected and
I hope the initiative passes.

after the FOSTA/SESTA fiasco we need to carefuly figure out the implications
of new laws and initiatives before deciding to support them.

And this is one that actually nails it.

~~~
Trundle
Is FOSTA a fiasco for those that supported it? I thought that was just the
puritans getting what they wanted.

~~~
hlecuanda
Its a fiasco for everyone. On the face of it sounds commendable and how can
anyone NOT be against trafficking. But the way its implemented not only fails
to achieve what it sets out to do, but hinders it by making it Necessary for
publishers either actively moderate user contributed content, or avoid it all
together, (which is economically more feasible given that the risk of
liability for user content "trumps" any other consideration, (pun intended)

since FOSTA/SESTA covers hate speech, sites for political debate either assume
the risk an invest heavily in moderation, risk becoming censors of speech or
close the doors altogether.

as a "left leaning" commentator so eloquently put it after hearing the
lamentations of a "conservative" member of the /pol discussion forum when the
new policies were announced in 8chan:

"See what happens? Now burn in the fire you set yourselves"

Nobody (but perhaps the EFF) saw it comibg

------
zorpner
Reminder that we can, and should, hold Facebook employees, who hold _literally
all the power_ , responsible for this.

If you worked at Facebook past mid-2017 (because that's the only time _I_ know
you should have known about it -- really, you should probably have quit
earlier) in an non-visa-restricted engineering role and don't have a damn good
reason for it, I will never hire you. Same with Uber. And same now, for
Google. Your technical merits are worth nothing to me if I don't know you have
solid ethics.

~~~
daveevad
Which companies would you view, from a hiring perspective, as having solid
ethics?

------
roadbeats
Let's assume Facebook fixed their privacy flaws. Are we good then ?

Same company (CA) used other tools to manipulate elections. For example, they
used Whatsapp to manipulate Kenya elections and this was reported last august
by Al Jazeera:
[https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2017/08/f...](https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2017/08/fake-
news-shape-kenya-elections-170805081741474.html)

Did Whatsapp help CA to manipulate elections in Kenya? Nope (If yes, that
would be a much bigger scandal). According to the report from Al Jazeera, it
could be Telegram or Signal, doesn't matter.

Most people just focus on Facebook but I think it's just the tip of the
iceberg. We should actually think about how democratic elections can survive
manipulations...

~~~
aluhut
You could just spam channels on Telegram but for Whatsapp and Signal you'd
have to get the phone number first, then be added by the receiver. I wonder
how they did it. The aljazeera article is not really informative and I can't
play the video here.

~~~
roadbeats
You didn't check the link. People volunteerly shared fake news with their
friends.

------
benevol
They always have been disgusting and will always be. I have ceased all
activity on Facebook and my life has never been better. F#ck Facebook and f#ck
Zuckerberg.

------
feelin_googley
[https://boingboing.net/2018/03/20/why-did-facebook-pitch-
in-...](https://boingboing.net/2018/03/20/why-did-facebook-pitch-in-over.html)

