It is. Politicians need to be transparent and serve the public. Private meetings without public record with big influent corporations is concerning.
Politicians should keep public records of this kind of encounters. That a public officer talks about his right to keep secret talks to remove privacy from his citizens is wrong at many levels.
"the memo reveals that Sandberg’s feminist memoir was perceived as a lobbying tool by the Facebook team and a means of winning support from female legislators for Facebook’s wider agenda"
In response to Sheryl’s 2010 TEDTalk on the ways women are held back—and the way we hold ourselves back—viewers around the world shared their own stories of struggle and success. This overwhelming response inspired Sheryl to write this book. In Lean In, she shares her personal stories, uses research to shine a light on gender differences, and offers practical advice to help women achieve their goals. The book challenges us to change the conversation from what women can’t do to what we can do, and serves as a rallying cry for us to work together to create a more equal world.
I guess that in a more equal world men and women can more equally act in a morally reprehensible way.
Can the character of executive leaders be echoed down throughout the organization all the way to its users?
Plus, shady is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's legal to sell ads that undermine democracy in the West, lead to ethnic cleansing in Burma etc., but it doesn't mean it's not horrendous. And it's guaranteed there will be more examples like those until the platform is regulated (which it has to be imo).
Just on Sunday I had lunch with a friend who works at the ECB and asked disbelievingly whether phones and apps can really track your location or not.
So if Guardian readers with TWO PhDs don't get it, how are we going to educate a woman on the breadline with two kids, living in a shanty on the outskirts of Lilongwe?
No politicians on a European level, especially female representatives, would want to be caught dead getting cosy with Facebook. Facebook lobbying efforts are effectively dead in the water for the EU for the moment.
We are way past the point were anything can be done by politicians or the responsible press (both of whom have benefited from social media and have stuff to loose by being hardline). Things should have happened 3-4 years ago. Now we just wait it out till everyone learns lessons the hard way.
Niall Ferguson makes the case that this moment in time (transitioning from hierarchy to hyperconnectedness) has similarities to events that unfolded after the invention of the printing press. People remember the Reformation or Martin Luther as the positive outcome as information and connectedness suddenly exploded. But there were huge chaotic negative outcomes too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
Educating the masses today is as hard as it was back then. Education requires a healthy environment and a good guide/teacher and time. In todays world assuming the press is going to fill this role is very unrealistic.
As the old adage goes: Money talks.
Facts & Names.
Does this mean the architecture is getting better? Or are we going to get hit by more randomness soon?
Facebook owned Whatsapp also caused several so called Whatsapp lynchings in India based on rumors that were quickly spread via the app. Brazil's current president's campaign also used a succesful disinformation campaign via Whatsapp.
Of course, Facebook is merely the carrier for these influences. Some are driven by hostile intelligence agencies, some by opportunistic chancers.
> Comments like this don't contribute anything to the discussion...
While flip, it makes a good point: this is a kind of “dog bites man” topic. Such topics can still be usefully addressed, (and the article is a good one) but the outrage should be at the effectiveness (if any) and perhaps techniques rather than the action at all (which unfortunately is the subject of the article title).
> and I would argue they're actually harmful because they make people complacent.
The brevity of the comment is indeed cynical, but it sparled a good comment from you as well as provoking thought on my part of “what makes a discussion like this relevant”
Having it confirmed should make you angry, but it shouldn't come as a surprise.
Sounds like we're well overdue for an adjustment in laws to ensure that such things cannot go unchecked. Perhaps it's also a sign that globalisation wasn't an exclusively good development as it's tended to make corporations above nations and government. I wonder how we can dramatically rein in all of them so that it's rather more equitable.
I think Zuckerberg and Sandberg may not even be trying to be "evil" - maybe they are, I have no clue - they're "just" trying to grow their company in order to "do good in the world". If you convince yourself of something enough then you'll tend to put the blinders on to everything else. But people working jobs need to ask themselves on a continual basis if things are OK or if on the other hand their work causes real pain and misery
Plus, almost by definition, you have to put the blinders on to work in public relations.
Revelations are important.
if everyone is ill and they know it's from sausage quality, why even discuss about regulating it? Just do it. that's what the short cynic comment was about. this is noise that only serves Facebook by pretending that the obvious action to be taken should be discussed. it's way past that point for online privacy.
Any source for that? That sounds like a gratuitous accusation
Does it need a source? I mean, can't it just be taken as trivially true, in the sense that "some people like sex and money" ought just to be taken as true?
Are you claiming that no-one on the left wants, for example, censorship of individuals such as Tommy Robinson? It is trivial to prove otherwise, for example this tweet from Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, stating:
> I have written to Google CEO @SundarPinchai calling on him, as a matter of urgency, to remove the YouTube page of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson.
The article does not talk about censorship but privacy. That a corporation uses data to sell advertisements has nothing to do with personal expression and censorship.
We can have a discussion about censorship when it's relevant. What has to do your comment with the post?
Facebook's business model involves violating people's privacy.
Some governments might not want FB to do this. So FB are lobbying them to allow them to violate privacy.
Might it not, therefore, also be the case that FB will do other things to allow them to violate privacy?
And one of these things might be censoring politicians who want FB to respect privacy.