
Why is the FB leak getting more attention and momentum that the Equifax hack? - s3r3nity
FB should definitely be held to the fire, but it frustrates me that there is more momentum to regulate FB and prevent a similar situation than what happened with Equifax.<p>The latter has more implication on damaging a person&#x27;s prospects of living productively in society (think about all the stuff your credit score impacts) than the Facebook data leak.<p>At least FB is voluntary - you can&#x27;t opt out of social security numbers.
======
RickS
Because normal people don't understand or care about what equifax is or does
or has. They "know" what a credit score is insofar as it's a number that
lenders care about. That's about it.

People are mad about facebook because it's an actual part of their daily lives
and they "know what it is". I put that in quotes because it seems people are
just now figuring out what facebook _actually_ is, in terms of funneling man-
cattle into advertisement pens.

Imagine if your company had some obscure HSA type benefit that you didn't
really understand, and you could have made $2k in tax gains and didn't, and
now the window's closed. Bummer, but i mean... whatever. It's all confusing
accountant jargon anyway.

Now imagine that your company would expense $2k in meals as long as you filed
for reimbursement within 72 hours, and you missed out on $2k of free lunch.
You'd be mad as hell!

Same money. Different levels of personal "realness" based on comfort with the
underlying concept.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _normal people don 't understand or care about what equifax is or does or
> has_

People also discount hypothetical harm versus tangible harm. We haven’t yet
seen a massive fraud carried out with Equifax’s data. We _have_ seen
malfeasance resulting from Facebook’s negligence.

There is also an international component to Facebook which does not exist with
Equifax.

~~~
imustbeevil
I'd trade "Cambridge Analytica knows I like Saosin" for "hackers know my
social security number" any day.

~~~
spdustin
You're not alone.

------
ucaetano
Because Equifax was a hack, Facebook's situation was WAI.

Your bank putting a bad lock on the safe is different from the bank creating a
back door where others get a red carpet to the safe.

~~~
dsacco
What is WAI? I searched for “WAI” by itself and with “Facebook” and got
nothing useful. You’re the only person using this acronym and no one else
seems to be responding to it; do you mind clarifying it?

~~~
chatmasta
This happens a lot on HN. Personally I don’t mind it, but it is problematic
for discussion.

I enjoy the puzzle of guessing acronyms based on context. Apparently it’s part
of my MBTI personality type... and I think I got this one right as “working as
intended,” but I only have the context in this case because I share the OP’s
opinion on the matter at hand.

That illustrates the problem that using unidentifiable acronyms limits
discussion by constraining your audience to those who already agree with you
or share your expertise.

~~~
tudelo
It's interesting that you realize they are problematic for discussion, yet
continue on to use the acronym "MBTI".

~~~
chatmasta
I don't know what it stands for.

------
temp-dude-87844
The Equifax breach affected data about people that was collected as part of
practices that tie to big finance, whose behavior feels hopelessly
disconnected from the everyday lives of individuals. It's the System, it's
always been the System, and will probably always be the System, made sure of
by lobbyists, inertia, and lack of good answers that are equally palatable to
everyone on how to do it any other way.

For common people, there's a sense of helplessness, and for politicians
there's a sense of inconvenient consequences for having punted the topic of
national identity to the States and the private sector -- and too many
barriers to achieving realistic progress on doing it any other way.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal is about data that was once relinquished by
users voluntarily for a different purpose, or collected by Facebook as part of
its normal operating practice, that found its way through multiple hands in
unsavory backroom deals, and ultimately ended up with a radical actor who
ostensibly used it to help a widely-derided candidate eke out a narrow and
unexpected victory in the US presidency.

It's an issue that emotionally tugs at all sorts of people for all sorts of
different reasons: multiple breaches of trust, a corporation's business model
laid bare to everyone who's been unaware, the complete lack of accountability
to the chain of custody of people's data, the unsavoriness (depending on the
viewer) of some of the characters involved -- it's a story everyone can get
upset about. More critically, it's a story that annoys politicians too, and
unlike with Equifax, they are actually equipped and willing to take action on
it.

------
slg
I think the primary difference is that Equifax is more of an isolated incident
while the Facebook leak is part of a bigger story. That bigger story is about
what happened during the 2016 US presidential election, the Brexit referendum,
and other recent elections. That story seems to have revealed a fundamental
flaw with how democracies function in the digital age. Understanding and
fixing that flaw is one of the most important things we can do as a society
because our governments have a hand in every part of our lives. That goes much
further beyond the hours and money that victims of the Equifax hack will
undoubtedly lose.

------
kazinator
> _Why is the FB leak getting more attention and momentum that the Equifax
> hack?_

Mainly because the news and other mass media feed on _recency_. Equifax is
yesterday's news.

Also, Facebook is actually a concept in people's lives, whereas Equifax is
just a kind of hidden parasite that large numbers of people are affected by,
but do not interact with directly.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I suspect there are 2 main causes:

1) People perceive that FB might have helped Donald Trump get elected
President of the United States.

2) The traditional media companies see Facebook as their rival and hate how
Facebook can control access to a significant percentage of the population.
Therefore, it is in their interest to amplify anything that has the potential
to harm Facebook.

------
mluu510
totally agreed with this. we had data leaks that involved our credit card,
bank account, SSN, etc. but media & gov is tripping over fb leaking our likes
and friendship connection? what crazy world are we living in? this seems more
like a publicity stunt than anything else.

------
zeruch
Part of it (I suspect) is that while Equifax's issues were egregious and
woefully under-responded to, it still is essentially one thing...your FICO
score and the info that feeds it, that was the main loss/breach.

To a lot of casual consumers, that still feels fairly attenuated from daily
life.

FB on the other hand, is something people willfully interact with and hold
'private' conversations on and divulge personal data across a spectrum of
areas. It feels more visceral and violating.

~~~
ReverseCold
Yup, the Equifax breach affects "just money".

Facebook being evil impacts who you are as a person, what you will do, what
you have done, etc.

~~~
jinushaun
I can uninstall Facebook and opt out of it. I can't uninstall Equifax. My
identity was stolen. It's more than "just money". It's something I will have
to deal with for the rest of my life. Always looking for my shoulder.

Facebook is insignificant by comparison.

------
atmosx
The Facebook leak gives an opportunity to the media apparatus controlled by
Dems to promote the idea that there's a link between Russia and the electoral
result in the last US elections. I have not read an article about the FB
without direct or indirect insinuations that _it changed the US elections_
yet.

The underline narrative is that everyone who voted _the wrong_ candidate was
_ill-informed_ or _tricked_ on purpose, while everyone who voted for the
_right candidate_ is educated and well informed. I'm in mid-30s but in the
world of politics, I never saw such a ferocious reaction form a losing party
in a western democracy. Politically speaking, we live in _very_ interesting
times I believe.

However, anything that improves awareness about privacy issues is to be
welcomed IMHO.

------
neo4sure
My take on this is, financial industries are old money firms. They have got
their hooks in proper into the system. They can control the damage that can be
caused by Congress. Tech industry is new money. They will first have to
replace the old money guys to get the same respect.

------
gkya
I'm not a US citizen so don't know much about Equifax, but from what I have
read about both issues (mainly through HN about Equifax) a main difference
between the two cases is that companies like Facebook are way more visible and
advertise that they have good will (they want to change the world, make it a
better place, connect people, etc..), whereas sth. like Equifax operates in
the background and does not try at all to convince you that they are a
willingly benevolent actor. So Equifax was just another fuck-up, but at a
bigger scale, whereas with Facebook it's more of a fraudulent PR. Moreover,
Equifax was hacked, Facebook has been used as it was meant to to exploit
people.

------
drawkbox
ISP astroturfing and the incoming government filter/firewall that they are
helping build [1]. SESTA/FOSTA are also part of this.

The internet is being turned into hotel wifi and ISPs are the brownshirt
errand boys helping it because of their privileged monopoly/network position
in the aristocracy and plutocracy.

Partly it is because everyone knows Facebook and the division in our country
is intense right now.

Mostly though it is because all that money that the ISPs used to put towards
removing privacy protections and net neutrality are now aimed at censorship,
tracking and control instead of innovation and expansion with new product
offerings. ISPs know they will have the monopolies needed for implementing it
and they will get deep access into the data to help their ad/tracking/data
selling efforts.

"Goodbye" \-- _Internet in 2018_

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-
advanci...](https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing-
under-trump/)

------
genericacct
Because equifax is not eating mainatream media's advertising pie i guess.

------
johnnyOnTheSpot
One word. Trump.

~~~
DataWorker
It’s as simple as that.

------
O1111OOO
Politics, control, power.

 _He who controls the flow of information, controls the world_ \- _History is
written by the victors_ \- Ingsoc's _Newspeak_.

------
aqsis
Simple, because Facebook are a threat to the entire way of life for mainstream
press, so they will jump all over this, spin it and twist it in all sorts of
wonderful, self serving ways to ensure their continued existence against the
beast that is threatening to turn them into inconsequential dinosaurs.

------
return1
At least in europe, people don't care for equifax, but Facebook is very
popular and certain to generate enough clicks whenever it's mentioned in the
title. To answer your question, the reason is clicks.

------
mayneack
Probably has something to do with the frequency of how often people
consciously use Facebook. Maybe they have comparable amounts of data, but
Facebook puts a lot of effort into making you think about it all the time.

------
znpy
As an European I care very little about Equifax as it doesn't affect me.

Facebook on the other hand, affects me because I used to bena member and also
because Facebook's tracking tentacles are all over the web.

TL;DR: the Facebook data leak is a global issue, the Equifax leak is only an
American problem.

------
sp332
I think it's exactly that sort of helplessness. I never did have control over
what was shared with Equifax or what they told other people about me.

------
ReverseCold
"The latter has more implication on damaging a person's prospects of living
productively in society"

Does it though?

If someone wanted to destroy you they'd rather have your psychological profile
than your social security number.

The worst someone can do with your social security number is have some
collectors (who legally can't collect money from someone who doesn't owe it)
bother you.

The worst someone can do with your psychological profile is undetermined at
this point, but it looks to be much much worse.

------
jerf
If you study machine learning, you'll encounter a definition of "bias" that
initially seems to differ from the conventional definition, in that a system
is "biased" by what it is capable of representing. If I have a simple AI
system that I feed two numbers to, "yellowness" and "curviness", it's going to
decide a lot of things that aren't bananas are bananas, because the
representation that it has access to is very biased and is not capable of
representing the full complexity of objects in the real world. This results in
a classifier that is very "pro-banana biased".

I say "initially seems to differ" because in my opinion, if you meditate on it
for a while, it becomes increasingly clear that the conventional definition is
actually a moralistic (in every bad sense of the term) mess, and this
definition actually applies very well and clarifies a lot of thought in this
area. But that's just a sidebar.

The main reason I bring this up is that I'd submit the reason people are more
upset about Facebook is that they find it much easier to _represent_ Facebook
in their minds than they do to represent Equifax.

Equifax is, on average... something... something... credit cards? Financials?
Ugh. Complicated. I've got no representations for that crap.

Facebook, by contrast, is what I spend two hours a day in. It's what caused
that entertaining family drama (depending on which side you were on) last
month. It's where I reconnected with... you get the idea. Very easy to
represent. Very easy to personify mentally, since the human brain that is
optimized for tribal living on the savannas of Africa (more or less) reuses a
_lot_ of circuitry for things not in the original design spec, and we use our
very capable "model complex behavior as stemming from human motivations"
circuits a lot. And that personified Facebook just betrayed you by spreading
gossip about you all over the place, _without your knowledge_ (you knew about
the rest of what it does), and for their benefit and to your harm. And is
being very unapologetic about it.

So there's a whole complex of ideas readily at hand in our brain to understand
Facebook. Facebook is basically being modeled as a friend, perhaps even your
best friend, who just stabbed you in the back for their own gain. Yup, people
are pissed. Where as Equifax was... something, err, people in an office and
they dropped some papers on the ground or something? People's brains are
readily able to represent Facebook using pre-existing circuitry, Equifax is
just a confusing mess that most people can't get a handle on.

Bear in mind that we have a very-above-average concentration of people reading
this post who do have the ability to understand Equifax. I'm speaking to the
public case here. I also don't think the public is "stupid" on this matter; I
just think most people lead lives that involve developing representations for
all sorts of things I don't understand per se, but don't involve developing
the rather artificial representations needed to understand the unbelievably
complex financial industry that exists today.

------
alexozer
Because it influenced the election in the United States.

------
weltstub
Cool to see Russian bot talking points on HN now.

~~~
ReverseCold
This was my first reaction as well, but I've met people IRL that seriously
believe that the Equifax hack is more important than Facebook's tracking.

This is definitely a discussion worth having.

~~~
jerf
You say that like it's some sort of impossibly silly idea? I have to admit to
not being entirely certainly how to score it myself, because in terms of
_direct_ damage the Equifax is worse, but in terms of what is _corroding
society_ Facebook is worse, and it is not immediately obvious to me how to
compare the two radically different vectors.

The idea that the only possible reason to believe one side or the other is
that one is in direct pay of a nation state spreading propaganda is probably
one of the more anti-intellectual things I've heard this week. Or something
like that. Don't have a great word for what this seems like to me. But it's
definitely a "what???" moment.

~~~
ReverseCold
Good points. I guess they are very different situations that can't be compared
easily.

