If he can detect bullying where people are afraid to report it. Then going forward with the authoritarian shit happening in government, what's next? Hear people verbally fighting and report that to the police. Hear kids getting yelled at and report it to the police as child abuse. Disputes and altercations are always reported to the police. The walls have ears. All this is possible with FB. It's a surveillance nightmare as bad as anything Orwell could've prophesied and yet people continue to use FB.
"Oh, you bought a fridge yesterday? How about you buy another one?"
Mind you, I am near tinfoil-level conscious of "cross contamination". I use Firefox on iOS for Facebook, and I never use it for any other browsing other than FB. My name is not my real name on FB, and it's written in a non-latin alphabet. I never discuss products on Facebook, and besides these events happen immediately after.
I have no idea how Facebook is targeting me with Amazon ads for things I just browsed on the Amazon app.
If you're logged in during your browsing, Amazon knows who you are. If you're not logged in, they presumably have enough heuristics to estimate who you are (based on previous logins from the device).
I don't know about their current programmatic bidding capabilities, but even on their Facebook's normal self-serve platform you can be targeted specifically by email (there's a minimum audience size for pseudo-anonymity purposes, but it's only like ~20 individuals).
Edit: You can go here to see the list of advertisers that currently have you in their audience lists for ad targeting. Currently mine has Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, one of Netflix's new shows listed, and some weird political thing that isn't even for the state that I live in.
> I use a different email, different name, no phone number, no address on FB... I don't get it.
One group ponders on the implifications and simplifications of rules, and how they can follow it with ease.
While extremists try to take the most painful interpretation of rules and use demagogue speech to enforce it.
Most Christians will interpret this in an enlightened way, either death meaning "spiritual death" or some other explanation. However if you are a biblical literalist, I mean the bible encourages death for nonbelievers, among other troubling stuff.
You can probably trust whatsapp end to end encryption as much as you can trust facebook to protect your privacy .
"We are strong advocates of encryption and have built it into the largest messaging platforms in the world -- WhatsApp and Messenger."
My point is that "end-to-end encryption in private channels" and "using AI to analyze data in private channels" is incompatible.
Historically speaking, Zuckerberg isn't trustworthy. The "Stupid fucks" comment from long ago should've been the first indicator of his shady character.
You have no way to know what is actually running on their servers.
However, saying that they implement E2E encryption and at the same time they will use AI to analyze what goes through the connection doesn't have to do with lies. It's just impossible. To analyze data you need to be able to read it. And you cannot read it if it's encrypted.
Corporate surveillance, with the intention of advertising to me no doubt, or selling what they can learn about me to advertisers.
I also assume any text messaging over Facebook Messenger can be used against me in a court of law. I don't imagine it's encrypted whatsoever.
Facebook fired its "news curators" in response to criticism of it suppressing "news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential 'trending' news section" . This happened in May of last year.
Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.
Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic.
The version of this play which I've heard was:
- Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories.
- Cover it with ads (from Google and others)
- Seed it in Facebook groups
- Rely on organic reach to generate traffic.
I maybe wrong about the ability to to arbitrage on this traffic. If anyone has numbers I'd love to see them.
But I wouldn't describe that as "raking in money" - more like a marginal increase which might have been matched by other changes in the news feed algorithm.
if you think that, you have been reading Fake News
I don't think that he'd want to manage a company that just fights off rivals. Becoming a politician and (trying to) make a change sounds more like him. He has the money, people mostly like him and he'd only have to find a CEO for Facebook to get rid of conflicts of interest, as he isn't involved in many other businesses.
Facebook could always give away VR headsets for free (disguised similar to the Free Basics program). Facebook has already run out of space to put ads on the Facebook platform, and so it has started trials on Messenger (in a couple of countries). One way to put ads everywhere is to install large screens (like in Sci-Fi movies or like those in Times Square). Another way is to give a small screen to people that's always in front of them and put ads there based on what the person is looking at, the location, time of day and other factors - that's what VR, or rather AR, will be about whenever Facebook gets serious about it (in relation to Wall Street and earnings). Google Glass probably had the same long term intent in mind when it was developed.
I think that depends on geography and demographics. He's popular in SV and the tech community, but perhaps not as popular elsewhere. It's hard to find objective data on it. The only thing I could find was a silly cbinsights bracket vote.  It would be interesting to see what his Q score is.
He already has a CEO: Sheryl is more than capable of running the business. Sure, she'd need a tech-visionnaire CTO (like a Jony Ivy for her Tim Cook-style), but I think FB would be perfectly fine without Mark.
Associated hn discussion:
You don't need to blame Facebook for this.
How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this group called "death to all jew" is hate speech?
Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world a better place.
Then again, it's just Mashable. I don't know why I worked at it so hard.
Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted services, wherever they can.
Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy. Most services do not.
Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved.
Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.
WhatsApp is one of Facebook's "private channels" that it's said to implement the Signal protocol, which is supposed to offer end-to-end encryption. If we assume all what Facebook claims is true, the only way to analyze WhatsApp messages for AI purposes is to leak data to Facebook servers before starting the E2E encrypted connection. But that would be just an exploitable back door that defeats the purpose of Signal, right?
Then it'll become like Messenger, where end-to-end encryption is an explicit choice (similar to Secret Chats in Telegram). Not that people using WhatsApp would really care. The stickiness factor is quite high.
In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.
I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it anyway. It could mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or completely. It could mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or the announcement of monitoring. It could mean there are business concerns with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy. It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't be as transparent as he truly wants to be.
I was thinking the same thing. How do you help prevent actions nearly mo one wants to happen (human trafficking, violent attacks) while at the same time allowing dissidents to talk etc.
You need an AI to be the one to flag it.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13667018 and marked it off-topic.
Natural News for instance is a widely cited "fake news" site -- it basically denies the science-based medical community in favor of an "alternative" form of medical quackery, often with a huge dose of "establishment" paranoia and conspiracy theory. (It is not surprise that Natural News is owned by someone who sells supplements and alternative medicine.)
So, for instance, a political decision by the India government that affected the Bill and Melinda Gates vaccination program over there, largely to diminish a perception of foreign meddling more than anything else (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1...) gets turned an implication that Bill and Melinda Gates are killing hundreds of girls in India with an HPV vaccine that contains "extreme side effects" (http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-14-india-tosses-out-gates...). The only "proof" Natural News offers is provided by links to the front page of several other suspicious conspiracy-theory websites.
This is the type of thing easily seen as "fake news". I don't think there's anything even in heavily partisan media (your Fox News and Huffington Posts) that come as close to having as many falsehoods, let alone in more sober media.
I really dislike how "fake news" has come to represent "news that has a different opinion than mine", because that was not what the original context was about.
1. side by side your images might convince someone unwilling to give it a moment of deeper thought. in actuality, if you look into the articles, maddow's problem with Pat Smith's statements are that they were explicitly partisan and explicitly against the findings of the congressional committees investigating benghazi, including:
>“She deserves to be in stripes,” [Pat] Smith said of Clinton…. “I personally blame Hillary Clinton for the death of my son,” Smith said while fighting back tears.
It seems her biggest problem was that the GOP continues to bring up Benghazi, despite several congressional committees finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
I didnt pay attention much to benghazi, but your image elicits a much stronger sentiment of partisanship than exists between the two articles.
2. hillary wore white, melanie wore white. Two completely different authors took something different away from this, and wrote articles reflecting their opinions of the outfits. Both articles are from 'Style' or 'Fashion' writers and are in the appropriate category for that topic, neither appear to have been advertised as news of any kind. To claim this as an example of 'fake news' is plainly dishonest.
3. a tweet from AP's FactCheck service they were doing during the debates (no indication of how factual the statement was regarded in the screenshot) investigating Trumps statement that Assad is fighting ISIS. The other image is a tweet from AP quoting Assad a few weeks earlier saying he had taken Palmyra from ISIS. If you look at the AP fact check article, they rate Trumps statement as Partially True, noting:
> His overstretched military is mainly focused on combating Syrian opposition groups, some of which are supported by the United States. Assad does use air power against IS-held areas
4. An image of the wall street journal with two different headlines, claiming that the differing headlines were a result of buying them in 'different markets'
Newspapers often print update versions of their papers as events evolve. in this case, the headline 'Trump Softens His Tone' was an earlier edition of the paper, printed after Trumps visit with the Mexican President, but before Trumps return to the US and reaction to the Mexican President's Tweets that they will not pay for the wall; at which point Trump got tougher as a reaction to the tweets - no longer having a softened tone, the WSJ rightly updated the headline to better reflect the current reality of Trumps position.
5.I dont even know what this one is, its a bunch of pictures of the DailyMail and the NYPost, two notorious conspiracy rags - again completely dishonest to use something like this to paint real news sources as dishonest. The pictures are from Bush/Saddam goings on so they must be at least a decade old. (wouldnt it be trivial to find more modern examples of these two magazines lying?)
6. This is just meaningless screenshots with text that implies that the IC telling us that they have evidence of russia hacking the presidential election is equivalent to congress telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no attempt to provide any evidence for this claim, but there is a quote from a Russian Foreign Affairs representative saying that Russia is sick of these claims that they interfered with the lection - very convincing.
7. This, again, simply makes the assertion that the media has lied without providing evidence of any kind. the text says:
>The Mainstream Media has been caught Lying to protect the government, lying about their sources credentials, lying to start foreign wars, and lying to start domestic wars. But please, tell me more about how bad 'Fake News' on the internet is.
Is this really it? This is the alt-rights argument that AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBc, et al are fake news? because someone wrote it in meme font over an image?
Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...
With how liberally those terms are being thrown around now, I have no confidence in any non-human and even most human curation.