> "If you watch the presentation, we really had nothing to show anyone," said one person, who was close to F8. "Mark just wanted to score some points." 
Teens know that they could easily become the next victim of the national outrage and humiliation machine. They never wanted to share their fun with grandma and their future employers. They don't want to be their own PR agent and cultivate an online persona. They want to experiment, express themselves freely with no repercussions, do stupid shit and face no consequences; in other words, have the same childhood everyone had before the internet came around. The content you see on Snapchat and Instagram reflects that: is not designed for permanency, it's not meant for adults, it's not meant for Facebook. What Mark is saying here is that he recognizes that reality, and hopefully will begin to tear down the old Facebook infrastructure.
Social media is the business of cool, and Facebook today is currently more GE than startup. If Zuckerberg is going to deliver this vision, he is going to need to let go of a lot of things that Facebook built over the years and maybe even start from the ground up.
I skim-read this, partly because it’s ludicrously long, but mostly because my feeling about Facebook at this point — more than a feeling, my entire mental map of the company — tells me that this is just a big pile of horse shit.
Put another way: this memo could have said pretty much anything, but as long as it purports to be about Facebook doing “a privacy thing”, I’m just going to ignore it.
Why would I believe them?
It means at least some Facebook employees will be empowered to take action on it, because the top boss said so. We'll see what they end up building.
How do they make money off it? If everything is encrypted, they cannot have targeted ads. They can't read the data to push ads for different demographics.
Personally, I think a (more) private social network is a great idea. But I don't see how Facebook's financial incentives align with whatever this is.
The market right now isn't shook at all, no change after hours. If it had anything remotely to do with the magnitude of what they're suggesting the stock would be down quite a lot.
I think it'll be: free Facebook is old Facebook (we will own your data) .. profit-Facebook is new Facebook (pay us to keep your secrets) ...
People that don't "care" -in the sense HN does- about privacy will stay in the free tier. Why should they pay now?
People that do care have either stopped using the platform or will be not be trusting FB enough to bother.
Facebook is literally built on violating user privacy.
Where are those data centers? Switzerland?
Switzerland: “We don’t violate human rights, but we’re the bankers for those that do.”
Mark, I don't want you to read my SMS. Thanks.
Translation: we want to head off regulation by giving empty assurances to lawmakers that we're working on the problem, but we plan to slow walk this so we can continue business-as-usual for the foreseeable future.
It makes sense to take an independent stance, as arguably in most markets today, governments need the consent of facebook users more than facebook needs the consent of governments.
I have always been a facebook skeptic, but this post comes at a very crucial time for encryption policy and the role of globalized tech companies. When Barak Obama said in a speech some years ago something to the effect of how we can't have people walking around with swiss bank accounts in their pockets, as far as many countries without sophisticated interception programs are concerned, they have had to live with the equivalent for the last 10 years.
To me, Zuckerberg's post signals that large tech companies are looking at their 5-10 year horizons and placing small bets that they are going to outlast their opposition on encryption. Brexit is going to cost both the UK and Europe their negotiating leverage, and surveillance in the US won't get a popular mandate.
There are obviously immediate product and competitive needs, but I think his post was driven by macro factors like these.
> Data protection is a huge concern for us all, and appreciate Facebook are working to making this platform the best it can be, with our safety in mind.
> Thanks Mark & the FB team.
I mean, seriously? That is some strong Kool-Aide that person has drunk.
I believe the main problem is the lack of GOOD SOFTWARE alternatives to facebook and google. How would you collaborate on a document without google docs? Or share videos without YouTube or Facebook? We have all the hardware we need but not the software. And I mean this in a big way: we don’t even have consumer software for local area networks anymore!
Watch this and let me know what you think:
But the following weasel words let Facebook shout "end-to-end encryption" from the rooftops while quietly undermining it with back doors.
> There are still many open questions here and we'll consult with safety experts, law enforcement and governments on the best ways to implement safety measures [in end-to-end encryption].
There is no way Facebook will make their services truly secure, end-to-end. They just want to clean their badly stained reputation by pretending to do so.
Yes that will be the future and it won't be on FB. You are helping bring it about alright but mostly as a reaction to your awful policies and practices.
>"I understand that many people don't think Facebook can or would even want to build this kind of privacy-focused platform -- because frankly we don't currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services, and we've historically focused on tools for more open sharing."
That's only partially why people think that Mark. Let's not leave out your outright lies and omissions in front of Congress last year along with your other public denials. You don't have a good or credible reputation period.
>"I believe we should be working towards a world where people can speak privately and live freely knowing that their information will only be seen by who they want to see it."
And FB, advertisers and whomever else who ponies up some cash are assumed to always be included in that group as well. And this is exactly why nobody buys a word of your bullshit.
Facebook can promise to put itself out of business, spending its cash reserves on development of an ecosystem of interoperable, open source, fully decentralized solutions to replace all of what it does with no central authority and no possibility of censorship or surveillance.
It can find ways for this new decentralized network to be accessible in China, unlike its current platform.
Instead of saying "we'll consult with safety experts, law enforcement and governments on the best ways to implement safety measures," it can expressly refrain from working in any capacity with governments who seek to inhibit speech or expression on the internet.
It can disclose all of the algorithms and decisions that produce the news feed and allow people to opt in or out of them, ensuring that their news feed is not a means of manipulation.
I mean, I can go on and on course. None of this takes any serious genius, just a decision to prioritize freedom and justice in society over money.
It's hard to imagine that anyone who's even remotely familiar with him will believe it either. It's the lead story on nytimes.com now and tenor of the comments is no different than that of HN regarding his nonsense blog post.
Didn't Facebook Messanger use XMPP back when the service was new? It sounds like they're going to a closed version.
Not too happy that my data from my deleted account might actually be gone by the time Facebook becomes privacy aware.
Seriously, I saw the movie, it took a few college kids a few months; now a rewrite for privacy will take years?
They’re buying time, and I am pretty sure people are already willing to buy privacy. Why can’t they sell that?willing
People expect that if they don't have a Facebook account we aren't mining their friends' address books to build profiles of them that can't be erased because they aren't our customers. We are sorry that we did that and after deleting them earlier this morning we will no longer operate that way...
(not a quote, just what I'd like to have seen)
It basically boils down to a promise that Facebook will "think about privacy" at some unspecified future date.
Do people really want bots in their private messages?
Didn't Instagram and Facebook steal the stories feature from Snapchat?
What people really want is React. How about making a React library for making facebook apps? Like AWS Amplify, but for Facebook.
Writing it now is just obnoxious. A lot of text with no meaningful content, mentioning a bunch of problems without offering solutions and without taking any responsibility.
Don't talk about "people prefer", "people expect", "working towards" and "we as a society" - you created this. With all of its problems, and all of the ethical and legal violations. You did things this way because it was extremely profitable and you are still doing it.
How does anyone take him seriously at this point?
Mark Zuckerberg has exactly zero credibility at this point.
Sorry Mark, no one believes you dummy.
> There has to be a statute of limitations on these things.
On what things? How? Directly insulting someone, and then just ignoring that you did it - while asking for their trust, which you previously said someone was a "dumb fuck" for giving - isn't something people are going to forget out of politeness for some "statute of limitations".
And lol, I just asked for an apology, not for him to be in prison or something. It's for his benefit - I'm offering some advice: if he wants trust, the place he has to start is by apologizing and asking for forgiveness first. Nothing else will mean anything.
If Mark wants more money, and he wants trust to get there, he should apologize clearly and explain why he has changed. He should also demonstrate that Facebook is willing to - and will carry out - changing incentives to align to privacy.
Step 1: Apologize
Step 2: Offer a real change.
Neither is happening.
I'm sure those kids from Harvard have gotten over it by now.
> James Edward O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. He has been criticized for selectively editing videos to misrepresent the context of conversations and the subjects' responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not.