
Based on his testimony today, Mark Zuckerberg puts users last during a crisis - DyslexicAtheist
https://theoutline.com/post/4128/mark-zuckerberg-kamala-harris-facebook-priorities-cambridge-analytica
======
vergessenmir
As much as I loathe too I have to defend Facebook. Not to say the data
collection practices are not egregious ,let's not forget that these are
industry-wide practices and that the hearings have less to do with protecting
users than it is political grand standing. Experian, anyone?

It's almost as if we've collectively forgotten the data breaches of the last
12 months and how exposed American and EU citizens are now to fraud because of
lax security practices by credit scoring companies.

I guess the difference is that Facebook is actively sharing this data and
Experian was hacked, because their breach was the action of an external agent,
they are less culpable.

From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped, politicians
are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform (conveniently
forgetting that every campaign before that has used large amounts of Facebook
user data), let's punish Facebook.

Facebook doesn't care about users, but politicians who have the power to
change this care even less.

~~~
cubano
> From the UK it looks like this. Trump used data, Facebook helped,
> politicians are upset that Trump was helped by the Facebook platform
> (conveniently forgetting that every campaign before that has used large
> amounts of Facebook user data), let's punish Facebook.

Bingo we have a winner.

That's _exactly_ what this is really about...nothing more. Our media and
political masters are still in deep shock that Trump usurped them and stole
the most coveted position from them as an outsider.

Heads must roll! Talk about not caring about it "users"...almost half the
population of the US voted for Trump, and these elites couldn't care less
about them or the message they are obviously trying to send.

~~~
danShumway
I'm tempted to agree.

I despise Trump and I despise the dishonest, manipulative way he ran his
campaign, but some of the recent coverage smacks to me of people just coming
up with more excuses to get around the fact that a lot of people voted for
him.

We have a habit of being kind of condescending towards rural voters, and the
trend towards, 'you didn't have any agency, you were just manipulated into
this' is uncomfortable to me.

~~~
justherefortart
The fact that more people voted for the opponent should say something as well.

2.9 million more votes is a big fucking deal IMO>

[https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-
hillary...](https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-
clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html)

~~~
danShumway
I feel like Gerrymandering is a separate conversation.

I'm sympathetic to people who feel like Hillary should have won based on
popular vote, but even if Hillary had won, that's still 46% of the population
who voted against her, and I still think it's dangerous to chock a number like
that up to "well, the Russians meddled and Facebook is evil."

A lot of people consciously chose to vote for Trump, not because they were
mind controlled, but because they actually thought he was the best candidate.

~~~
InitialLastName
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I'll say it again: Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral
college.

Unless you think that state lines were drawn (all at the latest in 1866, when
the last gray area between Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada was cleared up) with
modern political considerations in mind, gerrymandering (the manipulation of
electoral boundaries for some political purpose) has nothing to do with the
electoral college.

~~~
danShumway
Good catch, I misspoke - but, the point still stands when talking about the
electoral college, right?

What I was getting at is that the actual winner of the election wouldn't
change anything about the 46% of voters who chose Trump over Hillary.

That speaks of problems and divides that are deeper than Facebook.

~~~
InitialLastName
That's true.

To me the bigger issue though is the 45% of eligible voters who didn't bother
to show up (or were prevented from showing up).

------
crystaln
There are so many companies that collect and sell data on Americans that I
don't understand why our Congress is grandstanding on Facebook. Hello credit
card companies?

These hearings seem more political based on Facebooks percieved biases than
focused on protecting consumers.

~~~
sappapp
Facebook's platform allows outside parties to target users based on that data.

~~~
Ma8ee
So credit card companies don't let outside companies use their data to tailor
marketing directed at you?

~~~
briandear
Not to influence elections.

~~~
danShumway
Honest question - why should we believe Equifax would act differently from
Facebook?

Are there additional regulations or something? Every company under the sun
wants to do credit checks before they do business with me; and they often
don't ask me about it in advance. Is there some mechanism that would make that
data less valuable to them if they wanted to do political targeting?

I don't take it as a given that Equifax would be more careful with my data
than Facebook is, but maybe I'm missing something about how credit regulations
work?

------
victorbojica
Don't want to take Zuck's side, but reaching such conclusion from only two or
three sentences seems a bit unfair and misleading. The title sounds great
though...

~~~
cdubzzz
Ditto this. The article doesn’t say much of anything at all and makes giant
jumps in logic based on a few quotes without full context.

Honestly I have been somewhat impressed with Zuckerberg’s handling of this
situation, at least in comparison to public statements from other companies
when it comes to issues about users and data privacy. However I am still
pessimistic about the potential for any useful action after all of this
kerfuffle around FB and CA.

------
perlpimp
Ted Cruz also did use Cambridge Analytica.

~~~
briandear
And Obama’s and Hillary used Facebook directly with the cooperation of
Facebook. Cambridge was just a proxy for what Democrat candidates were getting
for free. It doesn’t make it right but it’s a false equivalence to condemn
Cruz for Cambridge without condemning Facebook itself for the other
candidates.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Equating what Obama/Clinton did with what Cambridge Analytica did is a false
equivalence. The data Obama/Clinton collected was given voluntarily with users
understanding more or less what it was going to be used for through apps that
were overtly connected to their campaigns. The data Cambridge Analytica
collected was collected by tricking users into giving it to them with fake
quizzes with users having no idea what the data was going to be used for.

------
itronitron
I highly recommend listening to Sheryl Sandberg's interview with NPR from last
week. It is a great example of the manner in which people behave in order to
successfully stay out of jail.

~~~
justherefortart
What did they do that was illegal?

Maybe it's unethical, but is it? When people signed up, wtf did they think was
going to happen to their data?

~~~
itronitron
I don't know whether or how it is illegal, but the way she talks is a great
example of how everyone should interact with law enforcement... acknowledge
and agree with the concern but do not answer any questions or provide any
information.

------
lancebeet
Something very strange is going on with the scrolling on that website.

~~~
rdiddly
Agreed - it actually crashes my browser!

------
booleandilemma
And the market made it clear it still values FB.

~~~
justherefortart
Isn't it #2 (no pun intended) behind Google as an advertisement platform?

Look how much people spend on a SuperBowl commercial, it's clear Facebook
still has a massive audience and that's the value.

------
StavrosK
Who are these people who, before today, thought that Zuckerberg actually _did_
care about users? Didn't they know about the "dumb fucks" thing?

------
michaelhoffman
Today?

------
vasilakisfil
Says an author on a site full of ads that even bypass my adblock.

~~~
blocked_again
They have bills to pay and ads are probably their only source of income.

~~~
Blaiz0r
Then they should look for gainful employment in a stable industry that pays
them consistently for their work.

~~~
raechu
News media is still the primary way of keeping the populace informed. The
populace being informed is essential to them making good decisions when
voting, without it democracy becomes a sham.

This means that if being a journalist in news media is not "gainful employment
in a stable industry that pays them consistently for their work" then we are
going to have some serious problems as a society.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
Here's the kicker: We already have _some serious problems as a society._
They're just too nuanced and technical for most humans to care.

