
Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes - smacktoward
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/zuckerberg-deleted-messages
======
alphakappa
I think it's clear from nearly a decade's worth of Facebook's trysts with
privacy issues that it is a company that doesn't have a fundamental stance
that's in favor of user privacy. Over and over again it has either
intentionally built features that disregard privacy, or put in wrong defaults,
or simply brushed off criticisms when others have misused Facebook. At this
point we should be asking ourselves why we expect Facebook to change on its
own.

There isn't a good alternative to Facebook (given the network effect and the
legitimate features that Facebook provides), but it's probably important that
there be public oversight of Facebook (and any other social media company that
becomes large and powerful as Facebook).

We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power
to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives
who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that
should teach them fundamental lessons. If the leadership is so reluctant to
tackle these issues head-on, maybe they need to be replaced with a humbler set
of leaders.

~~~
jamesmiller5
All I need is a better chat app, that Facebook won't buy. I can now text,
voice record, send photos/selfies and video messages easily to my social
circles. Connecting to second degree connections is fast and everyone I know
has an account.

I want to leave Facebook but I can't give up such an amazing chat experience
that keeps me connected to my family and close friends. Even if I got my
immediate family to use a different app, I'd have to keep Facebook for old
friends :( .

(edit, spelling)

~~~
dx034
Only using whatsapp without other facebook accounts should still be fine.
Whatsapp has end2end encryption (unlike FB messenger) and if you don't use
other FB products they can't use your data for ads. Obviously not as good as
an independent messenger but will cause the same revenue loss for FB.

~~~
oarsinsync
I believe that’s only text. Try sending someone a video. Takes a while. Try
forwarding that video to someone else moments later. Happens pretty quickly.

Same applies with photos in my experience. I’d assume voice notes,location
pins, etc are also subject to this as well.

~~~
fwn
WhatsApp reduces the quality of your media and saves it in a second folder of
your gallery.

If you forward already converted media it will be taken from the gallery in
it's compressed, substantially smaller version.

~~~
oarsinsync
On iPhones it has a splash screen for compression and then a separate spinner
in the chat for the upload progress for videos. That second upload spinner
doesn’t occur for immediately forwarded videos.

~~~
fwn
That is interesting and different from what I have experienced on Android.
I've no explanation for that.

------
everdev
I'm no fan of Facebook and deleted my account years ago, but the flood of
articles like these that are barely embarrassing since the major Cambridge
Analytic embarrassment feels more like an agenda or piling on than newsworthy
items.

There are many reasons to reduce or eliminate your time on FB, but this isn't
one of them.

~~~
CodeMage
On the contrary, everyone's willingness to accept this kind of behavior as
normal indicates how far the Overton window has moved when it comes to the
trustworthiness of our digital services. We need a collective effort to shift
things back where they belong.

~~~
jerkstate
I disagree, privacy-conscious people have been warning that Facebook has been
doing these things since forever, so people (especially here on HN) can't
claim that they didn't know these things were going on. This is just the same
old story: people being upset about the consequences of what they were warned
about many many times.

~~~
_jal
I, too, wish for a better quality of collective decision-making on the part of
humanity, but this seems to be how "we" do these things. "What, me worry?" is
probably the central recurring theme of history, if you're inclined to look at
things a certain way.

~~~
flukus
We also used to accept that negative reinforcement was part of this learning
process, but now it's called victim blaming.

------
saagarjha
> Zuckerberg’s profile doesn’t show a button to add him as a friend on
> desktop, and the button is grayed out and disabled on mobile.

Of course he has special rules for himself. Fun fact: you cannot block Mark
Zuckerberg on Facebook. It just won't let you.

~~~
spicyj
> Fun fact: you cannot block Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. It just won't let
> you.

This was fixed months ago (and was a technical problem that affected anyone
blocked by many thousands of people, not just him). It wasn't intended.

~~~
kerng
>> It wasn't intended.

We have been hearing the "it's a bug" a lot lately from Facebook.

~~~
marricks
Agreed. I think they've pretty much used up their plausible deniability quota
for the year, or decade...

~~~
mschuster91
Facebook, however, has a _massive_ codebase. Their app is easily one of the
biggest Android apps, in fact it's so huge they repeatedly (?) had to hack the
Android runtime environment to allow it to run.

Their backend and frontend code is likely also a huge monster. In addition
they're doing ML/AI stuff which is even harder to debug.

~~~
marricks
You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button? Bit of a
stretch.

~~~
mschuster91
> You’re implying their ML/AI interefered with Mark’/ dislike button?

I don't imply it, but given how many spam filters these days are realized as
more-or-less-black boxes, it is a plausible theory.

In addition, at least for Twitter and FB, there has been suspicion for long
time that reports/blocks have faster consequences when many people
report/block, as automated filters take over before a human can look at it. I
can imagine that there is a filter that gets triggered when a user gets N
reports/blocks in M minutes, with e.g. N=100 and M=30, to automatically flag
users as potential spammers, unsolicited nude senders or whatever. This had
hit Zuckerbergs account, the spam filter blocked his account... and then
someone was tasked with preventing this, by disabling the block function based
upon certain criteria.

Also, the bug seems to have affected only users blocked by thousands of
people. Not exactly your usual testcase, and I don't know if I'd have thought
of this scenario when writing the test specifications.

~~~
kerng
You are assuming that there are test specifications - in many organizations
thorough testing before shipping is a thing of the past. A/B and testing in
production is the new norm unfortunately. That's probably part of the problem.
Since the users are the product being tested it makes even sense.

------
ryanlol
I recently saw the name @Mat available on instagram, I registered it. Twice.

Both times the name was taken from me by a Facebook employee and eventually
given to this Mat Henley guy from Uber.

Screenshots of Facebook staff forcefully resetting the account names:

[https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png](https://i.succ.in/WuwuV1IH.png)
[https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png](https://i.succ.in/WuMMtKTr.png) (The revert
button does nothing, just offers to change your password)

It seems like FB employees do not need a particularly good reason to go play
around with admin tools editing user accounts. If they can _edit_ users
accounts this lightly, what does it take for them to look through you private
posts or messages?

~~~
exolymph
Hey, I'm a tech reporter and I'm interested in looking into this further. Can
you email me, or perhaps provide contact info? My email is smann@inc.com

~~~
ryanlol
I've sent you an email, could go to spam, not sure.

~~~
exolymph
Thanks, I'll check!

------
luckydata
Facebook exists for one reason only, Mark's desire to be rich. Everything else
is completely opportunistic. If you see it through that lens, everything
they've ever done makes complete sense.

~~~
jasonvorhe
If that was the case, he'd find a replacement CEO, sell his shares and be done
with it. He's already rich enough to be have to lift another finger in the
next 10 lifetimes.

~~~
joering2
I made it from few thousands per month of salary to my first sell for $1MM in
2004. I thought I was rich. Then I start meeting people much richer. My last
exit was with $17MM check. Guess what - I still feel I'm poor.

The point being, rich people don't look down - they look higher at people who
are richER or wealthy (few people in America are such as Buffet, Gates, etc).
I assure you Zuck doesn't sell his stock to be rich and "done with it"; he's
looking at Bezos fortune and that's where he's aiming at. Greed never stops
and there is always something/someone bigger to look at.

Fun fact: I know a buddy in Bezos close circles and he told me Bezos is not
looking up at anyone but keeps growing like crazy NOT TO lose his position. So
there you have it; always a reason to get up just another morning and make
just another buck.

~~~
filoeleven
> Bezos is not looking up at anyone but keeps growing like crazy NOT TO lose
> his position

And what are the consequences if he does lose his position? He still has a
literally incredible amount of power. Is the drive to be at the top of the
heap a necessary trait of amassing wealth?

The way you write about competition amongst the rich makes it look like a
pissing contest in a community pool.

~~~
joering2
I don't understand your question. What are consequences of losing a game of
chess? Or anything in that matter...

> The way you write about competition amongst the rich makes it look like a
> pissing contest in a community pool.

Bingo! IT really is, and one day when you have a chance spending some time
with wealthy individuals, maybe at the party when they drink and open up, you
will see for yourself how shallow and simple the game really is.

------
chx
The problem with any regulation curtailing Facebook is it's practically
guaranteed to hurt Internet freedoms. A lot.

~~~
mirkules
Thank you! I feel like I'm watching this trainwreck in slow motion by myself,
as we used to inch - but now barrell - towards regulating the internet into
oblivion. This is ironic, of course, because the internet is meant to be
decentralized and deregulated, and the very people pushing for regulation are
the same ones that oppose legislation in other aspects (e.g. encryption). It's
a very short hop from wanting Facebook to comply with some law, to compelling
Facebook to turn over user data to verify the law has not been broken.

~~~
rimliu
Regulating what corporations can do with your data is a bit different than
regulating internet.

------
radicaldreamer
Proved again and again:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16725506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16725506)

------
throw2016
The basic endpoint of Facebook and Google whatever their stated objectives is
to build detailed long term profiles of every individual, like the stasi or
any totalitarian state.

This appetite for user data is so great simply tracking location and content
across devices is not enough. Here is Facebook trying to do deals with
hospitals to access all their patient data [1]

It's easy to see where this goes and how encompassing it becomes. People in
the ad ecosystem will hand wave, diminish and deny but that's just self
interest. For wider society the effect is sinister.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-
building-8-explored...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-
building-8-explored-data-sharing-agreement-with-hospitals.html)

------
kerng
This is another example of Facebook valuing its own privacy, while at the same
time continuing to disregard the privacy needs for its users. I always gave
them the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting ridiculous.

------
timeimp
"Do as I say and not as I do"

-Facebook Privacy Policy, circa 2018

~~~
KozmoNau7
Exactly. There are rules for the rulers, and different rules for the serfs.

------
HenryBemis
Watch "The Circle"!! It is the famous moment when Tom Hanks says "oh we are so
....ed". And Tom Hanks can deliver a line!

Secrets are Lies, but their secrets are better than your secrets. I am
surprised that FB still hasn't lost 30% of their users by now.

~~~
exodust
After 20 minutes I couldn't stand it any longer. Bad movie.

------
mtnygard
This seems like FB expects to get hit with a discovery process and injunction
against deleting anything. It's housecleaning before they're forced to open
the curtains.

------
esturk
I now wonder whether it's worth it to join Facebook just to delete my personal
data and just quit afterwards?

I wouldnt even ashamed to admit this in future interviews.

------
thrillgore
The continuing saga of people's realizations that raccoons have been digging
through the collated data of 2 billion "dumb fucks" as Zuckerberg would call
them.

------
auchenberg
"Nothing to hide"

------
feelin_googley
Apparently Sandberg went on a press tour giving five or so interviews,
apologising according to script in each one.

But apparently she veered a bit off script in one of them, on the Today show.

She said "our service depends on your data."

Apparently she said something like "If they want to opt out of sharing all
their data, they will have to pay for it."

Source:

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheryl-sandberg-sticks-to-
scrip...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheryl-sandberg-sticks-to-script-ahead-
of-zuckerbergs-testimony-before-congress/)

~~~
r00fus
Wondering what form of payment Sandberg wants. It's not like they give us the
option to pay in money.

------
feelin_googley
The folks in Myanmar apparently have taken issue with how Zuckerberg referred
to FB's "tools" and "systems" for detection of hate speech in his Vox
interview. They sent him a letter:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/technology/zuckerberg-
fac...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/technology/zuckerberg-facebook-
myanmar.html)

~~~
cornholio
Blaming Facebook for not stopping chain letters spread on messenger is
disingenuous, especially in the context of the privacy debate.

If you believe people have the right to private communication, there's nothing
a technology company can do to fix social problems like this, you need social
measures, international pressure and so on.

------
feelin_googley
Send your old comms with Zuckerberg to the FTC for safekeeping.

The three sources asked to remain anonymous for fear of "angering Zuckerberg".

But they still wanted to share their story with TC.

------
feelin_googley
Mike Myers (Dr Evil) thinks Zuckerberg is more hated than Donald Trump.

[https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/mike-
myers...](https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/mike-myers-
resurrects-dr-evil-as-ex-trump-staffer-announces-zuckerberg-as-2020-running-
mate-20180406-p4z824.html)

------
matte_black
Thing is a nothingburger. Do people really believe messages can’t be deleted
no matter what?

~~~
gaius
It’s difficult to retract a message SMTP’d to my server then POP3 download to
my desktop computer

Sometimes the old protocols are the best

~~~
supertrope
Delete buttons cut both ways. You can yank content but so can others. Of
course you don't have assurance it's been truly deleted and someone could save
a copy. Even before I quit it was hard to tell if the submitter wanted it gone
or if it was a technical glitch, censorship, or displaced by ads.

If you want to be cynical it's kind of like the memory hole in 1984. More
charitably, it's not that different from broken links (except that broken
links leave a trace).

