
The left turns up the heat on Zuckerberg - raleighm
https://www.axios.com/facebook-mark-zuckerburg-left-coalition-regulation-c79debfa-5ccd-4af8-a59f-71cb23aa6918.html
======
Smoosh
There seems to be a very real danger that Facebook, powerful as it is, may
decide that it needs to protect itself, and start doing political deals.

I assume there's no need to spell out how dangerous this would be.

[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming-
facebo...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/05/18/alarming-facebook-
teams-think-tank-funded-saudi-arabia-and-military-contractors)

------
mortdeus
And yet when Obama used facebook to do the exact same thing, it was lauded as
the future of campaigns. The only difference I see is that after Obama won the
election, Facebook conveniently decided to change that policy. How do we know
that Facebook didn't intentionally leave that policy open to give Obama an
edge over what was and was assumed to be at the time going to be a very close
election?

[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2018/mar/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2018/mar/22/meghan-mccain/comparing-facebook-data-use-obama-
cambridge-analyt/) (also as I explain latter, i think the "half truth" rating
on this link is half truth. Nobody who downloaded the Obama app, knew that
their friend list could be used in a way to identify potential voters,
especially not in a way that would have raised ethical concerns in the
supposed party that "cares" about fair elections)

But of course the left needs to punish Facebook for not properly covering
their asses and assuring this weapon could never be used against them.

By the way, what's to say that Hillary Clinton didn't have direct access to
the Obama campaign's data as well? I mean considering the fact people's
political affiliations very rarely ever change and therefore data mined in
2012 is just as relevant today as it was then, why wouldn't Hillary Clinton
and Obama do everything in their power to ensure the left maintains control of
the WH; when they essentially wrote the textbook on this kind of thing? (it's
also worth pointing out that the cambridge analytica data was mined at the
same period in time.)

The very fact that the policy was changed--right after--the election seems to
suggest that Facebook had every intention of giving the left all the data they
would ever need to get the competitive edge over the right and win future
elections.

Put it this way, Facebook HAD to know how it's data was being mined from the
Obama app the second it started happening. Why wouldn't they be paying special
attention to the behavior of the President's app and it's users?

They also HAD to know the amount of power that data could have when
influencing people since that is the very reason why their business is
marketable.

And lastly, they HAD to know that putting a plug in it would stop future
campaigns from doing the same and the consequences that might ultimately yield
on the outcomes of future elections.

I mean we are talking about a company where some of their founders, Sean
Parker and Chamath Palihapitiya, talk about how they would have meetings and
discuss how they could manipulate their users into becoming addicted to their
app. And that is when and where they coined the phrase "dopamine feedback
loops".

Which also means we are talking about a company whose primary goal is to
design technology that doesn't just try to understand people psychologically,
but trying to understand how they can manipulate people psychologically as
well.

And we are supposed to just believe Mark Zuckerburg when he says if you asked
him 10 years ago if he thought he would be building an app that could one day
influence elections, he isn't just full of shit? I wish the senate would have
asked him if he knew--6 years--ago that facebook could influence elections...

Also I wish the Senate would have asked him how can he confirm the Obama 2012
Campaign erased their data like they were supposed to, if he couldn't even
confirm that Cambridge Analytica did. And then I would want to ask him, in
theory is it possible that if the Obama campaign still had access to that
data, could it be given to a new campaign. In other words, is it not only
possible but strategically likely, that Trump didn't actually even have a
competitive edge? and in fact without the Cambridge Analytica data, he would
have been at a strict disadvantage considering your policy changed and
therefore wasn't able to just take a page out of Obama's book, create his own
app, and ultimately receive the same benefits Obama (and potentially HRC) did
during their campaigns?

And one last thing, when a user downloads an app on your platform they have a
permissions dialog that specifically states what information a user consents
to give to the app developer in exchange for using their app. The controversy
with Cambridge Analytica's app was that it was misleading users and exposing
their friend list's without permission? Can you please explain exactly how
Obama's app asked for user's permissions and how Cambridge Analytica didn't?
And when asking, did the Obama campaign explain exactly how they intended to
use their user's data? When a user consents to give any app (not just
facebook) permission to access their info do the user's have the capability to
ask why the app is requesting that information exactly?

Can we get comprehensive answers to questions such as,

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my contacts?",

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--to access my friend list?",

"Why--exactly--does this app--need--access to my mic?"

Also is there an internal vetting process in place that ensures app developers
are being honest when stating the nature of their intent with regards to
permission requests and what they intend to do with the data once it is
received? And ultimately why not? Do you believe users deserve--real--
transparency with regards to how their data is being used/abused?

Because ultimately at the end of the day, that is how you go about fixing the
core issue we have. User's aren't actually being asked cordially for their
permission, they are being given just a more "in your face" terms of service
without an explanation and the right to negotiate. What if I want to use
facebook's app, but i don't want them to be able to access to my mic as they
see fit and im okay with the fact that I can't use the 2 features that require
it because I only ever use the 500 that never need to use my mic anyways?

What I am ultimately trying to point out here, is that the permissions not
actually being permissions issue isn't just facebook's problem. It's an
industry wide issue, and the current permission system only seems to exist in
the first place to exempt company's from all the legal problems they smell
brewing down the road. Something they'd only ever anticipate and institute
knowing all along the malicious nature that is underlying their intent. (I
mean steve jobs was the pioneer of this shit. Does anybody really think he
cares more about us than Apple's profitability.)

I just think it's so sad that we live in a world now where all mainstream apps
are essentially malware and its terrifying to realize that nobody really
understands that bad software isn't just the kind of software that opens
nonstop porn ads on your desktop and thus make your computer run slow.

~~~
jhbadger
"I mean considering the fact people's political affiliations very rarely ever
change"

Seriously? At least the cliche is that young people tend to be more leftist
than older people because students and other young people often work low-end
jobs and both experience low-incomes and empathize with people stuck in such
jobs for life, but become more conservative as they begin to have higher
incomes, own property, etc. and start wanting lower taxes.

~~~
mortdeus
I think people discover what their true political affiliations are when they
become more educated over time. When I was 18 I thought I was a democrat
because I had a very liberal leaning towards social views. And then when I
started learning about business, regulations, and etc.

I just found that Government are just a bunch of prom kings and queens telling
the kids who created lemonade stands that not only did they owe them a cut of
their profits, but how and where they could sell their lemonade. And there is
a shitload of corruption involved because they will tell you to move your
lemonade stand so that they can give the location to a friend.

I believe we need a Government, but I don't believe we need an omnipotent
Government that has the power to employ half of the nation despite not having
a notion of equity or a competitive pay scale.

So slowly over time I found that I am actually Libertarian and I vote for
Republicans because at the end of the day, the only real way the Government
can make people's lives better is to get out of the way (and pockets) of the
private sector. Which is the real backbone of this country. The private sector
is the only sector that has the real power to improve the quality of life and
self esteem of Americans, because as FDR put it in his extended bill of
rights, every American has the right to a good job.

I think we should have a constitutional amendment that makes it
unconstitutional for Congress to raise taxes above 15% for all Americans, and
I think the tax payers should have a say in how 5% of their Tax Dollars get
allocated into the budget. The President and Congress gets to say where the
other 10% goes.

I think if we had a system like that, then everybody would get a little bit of
what they want. You care about the state of our national parks? Then say that
is where you want a percentage of your 5% to be allocated for this voting
cycle. You think our military sucks? Send your bucks there. You think we need
to fund the FCC because they got rid of net neutrality. Then go for it. And if
you don't really care and think the President or Congress knows best, then
allocate your 5% to be distributed according to their best judgement.

Send your tax dollars where you feel they need to go. It's the best way to get
a comprehensive understanding of what exactly the people's concerns are.

Perhaps it would be chaotic, but what is to say that democracy shouldn't have
an element of volatile chaos in it?

