This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://level1techs.com/video/level1-news-april-10-2018-no-luck-zuck
The most concerning issue with Facebook is probably getting mixed up in politics while also being heavily into “social engineering” (lying and manipulating). They were especially dangerous because of their will to influence the public with not much emphasis on ethics. They were always game to pass out small glasses of Koolaid and not be really concerned about what it was laced with. They were apparently involved in a number of dangerous social experiments and MIT Tech Review made a habit of calling them on it. Even as such, it generally fell on deaf ears. They just didn’t see that being caught in between and on one side would eventually blow up in their face. Social engineers often get cocky and play themselves; and Facebook’s social engineers were doing it from day one. The problem with their model was that they depended upon the naivety of their patrons and didn’t account for the observer effect. If there is any personal lesson to be learned from behavioral science, it’s that projection will constantly and consistently bite you in the ass.
The sad part is that Facebook will probably survive this; because someone else is probably nearing the chopping block as we type. All it would take is for the attention to be redirected for a month or so; and they could go back to business as usual… like they have been doing for years. Sure they are circling the drain; but not because of a threat of too many patrons leaving. That would only take their no1 status. They have much more serious issues to contend with. Their investments haven’t been so… smart. Eventually even the government will cut them loose. Those who allow themselves to be used, get used up.
Also, that courtroom drawing at 27:23 really does look like some GTA artwork. I know a few friends in Japan who worked in different anime studios and their artistic talents are crazy. Some can speed draw hyper detailed artwork in under minutes. Not surprised that their court room art is that good.
For the very same reason did I come here to report.
One more thing about GDPR is, even if you request all of your personal data to be deleted, it is not your personal data unless the data holder is able to connect it to you as a person. There are several obvious implication here I’d like to share.
- If that data never was connected to your phone number or social security number or your name or your credit card number etc., then you have nothing to delete, in spite of being able to corelate that data with other services.
- If data holder is unable to connect you to your data, they have no data of yours. You may need to identify yourself to the data holder AND connect yourself to that data in order to have that data shown to you, and/or deleted. Example: “I logged in from this IP at this exact point in time and I can prove it was me, so I demand that you delete this shitpost I made”.
What is and isn’t your data is not very well defined in GDPR. The more data someone has on you, the more likely it is they will be able to identify you from that data. When does your data become your data, i.e. connected to your identity is not explicated enough in GDPR. One can assume it only happens when your connection to your data is legally deducible, as in “it can be established in a court of law”.
This gray zone will be exploited.
Through GDPR, we are looking towards an internet where there is appearance of more incentive to not be anonymous, because then you get the impression you are in control of your data. However, if data leaks, you aren’t. GDPR hopes to counter this by stipulating that, for example, Equifax (or Facebook in this case) would be easily processed for grave negligence in personal data protection and fined 20% of their global income in EU, if they intended to continue doing business in EU.
Still, if you want to be safe, truly safe, you need to remain invisible. Yet if you remain invisible, your ability to (at appear to) control any traces you make disappears. But by not being anonymous, you do get a degree of actual control over some aspects of your identity on the internet. Doxing for instance, becomes much more difficult.
GDPR could very likely in effect lead to more people practicing free speech and fewer people practicing anonymous speech.
And maybe this is really good.
I think the main issue with this platform is that the majority, including me, have base or no knowledge about how such a system works at all. I came to this forum to learn something from you guys, Mr. Wendell especially.
So what makes me paranoid could easily be translated to other people, and that is that behind the facade of FB with its various privacy and user settings, which Zuckerberg keeps using as an example trougout his whole testimony, is just for show and that these are accessible to them at any time, after all, they are the makers of the platform. That personal profile records are stored for further use for studying and monitoring the evolution of society, thus allowing these people to monopolize their markets as they please. I believe people are afraid for the future of their mental health and freedom.
As I know nothing of coding, I simply cannot “read” the platform, simple as that. That goes for the numerous gentlemen that were present there, who are probably very respected in their fields, but know nothing of coding. Whenever they try to get something out of Zuckerberg, he just refers to those things they can see, click or read, and so just makes them all run in circles, chasing each other.
Some of you would probably say that I am pointing out the obvious, but as long as I am ignorant of real Programming Language, my left hand will not know what the right one is doing. If my thought process is wrong here, I would gladly like a reply. Because, how can you not see a criminal activity in your field of expertise? If that’s the case, then it’s not a question “has he sold the personal information” anymore, it’s “what has he done with it”.
Having read up on the reports from the hearing (I will listen through it once I have the time):
Zuck says he’s sorry about everything he’s caught doing so far. He can’t also apologize in advance for everything he will be caught doing in the future, which is probably what makes him most uncomfortable - that he can’t just get it over with (pay his sorries in advance) and go on to business as usual.
There really is nothing in the hearing about systematically breaking down psychological and behavioral defense mechanisms in people, and whether his business may have contributed to increasing the amount of people being… ahem… here it goes… “obsessively compulsevily disproportionately loud for their level of expertise on any specific topic, ever” in social media. So, in a year or two, when someone connects these dots for the “normies” to get obsessively compulsively disproportionately triggered over, it will become an infected issue, and Zuck will be apologizing again. Unless the “normies” decide to literally hang him for all the (if you pardon the word) mindfuck he’s done to them over the years. Think #metoo taken up a notch or two and then squared.
How much sorry is enough to stop a witch hunt?
I’d like to see him sell out the people who sold him out. He is the CEO of a public company. He doesn’t have the protections that small businesses have. Facebook isn’t even an LLC like Google recently became.
Business as usual for Facebook pissed off the left; because it wasn’t completely in compliance with the left’s interests. He should just quit pretending that he’s sorry and give everybody the finger. There’s nothing that anyone can do about it; except quit using Facebook, and I doubt that will happen.
Everything wrong that he’s done is just unethical and immoral. He hasn’t broken any laws or done anything that the government isn’t doing. He’s probably even doing much of it for the government. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was just a dog and pony show to obscure recent legislation and maybe even upcoming legislation. That’s been the governments’ MO for a while now.
This smells like theatrics covering something up. It’s also hiding the fact that conservatism is outnumbering liberalism by a considerable margin. There are excuses for why Trump got more votes than HRC. It’s not really about right and left. It’s more about immediate values. For instance the left in the US would be considered conservative in many respects, in northern Europe. From a world perspective, the vast majority of US citizens are right of center. Most people in the US are middle of the road with respect to the right and left; but the right greatly outnumbers the left. HRC appealed to the left and far left while alienating the middle of the road… so she lost. This Russia did it nonsense seems to be a cover up for the disparity. The governments ability to divide and conquer requires a division and the current one is uneven.
Nation states tend to become more conservative with the perception of economic insolvency. When times are good, cultures become more liberal; and when times are not so good, they become more conservative. That is indicative of a hard influence; and something to take seriously; but the government isn’t likely to. They’ll just make up some story.
By hiding or witholding facts, any political organization can motivate whatever decision they want. That is the lack of accountability which most of us feel troubled with.
I’d say at most 4:1 even in Sweden (conservatives outnumber liberals), based on current party vote distribution. I am not considering the left-right scale, only liberal-conservative, which is not the same thing, and should perhaps not be mixed up in the same unit of measure. Also don’t think this has anything to do with any recent events one may allude to - it is more often like 9:1. So we are more supportive of the liberal today than before, something like an alergic reaction to the wave of nationalism and political hostilities. The image of Sweden painted by the media (especially the alt-right media, but some mainstream media also comes to mind) is a horrible self-serving caricature of truth. We have the mentioned problems, but in entirely different weights and amounts, and our capability to deal with them is good, albeit neither prompt enough nor radical enough for the desperately inclined. In truth, we are very conservative in Sweden. It may not extend to other people’s sexuality and the common interest of having a fairly liberal democracy, but we are quite conservative indeed. There is no worse place to go if you don’t think you will enjoy a consensus-driven, moderate, conservative lifestyle:
The worst place to move to and try make a friend? No, not what I’d call a liberal paradise. Not correcting you, just embellishing.
I’m not sure if there is a separate Facebook/ Zuckerberg thread… But the Zuck is testifying live before the American House Committee right now:
It is almost over, but you can scan back through the live stream.
It’s too bad he had to testify before his engineers had a chance to deploy the lifelike blinking algorithm…
Watching the whole thing, Zuck only has a few canned responses. They need to update that too.
I have to wonder if the shareholders at Facebook are going to be pushing Zuckerberg out of the company in the same way Steve Jobs was pushed out of Apple in the 1980’s?
Religious podcast ad targeted to people like me who belong to that cult
I think thats illegal, havent ever given any consent to any of that, its just something my parents shoved me from birth, and thats it
Then most importantly, as I havent ever listed the thing anywhere, its my church whos just given or sold the data for twatter, there is just no other way for twatter to know such thing
or does this mean that I am going to oven, soonish?
Left that cult and stated my reason for doing it
In the US we have the influence of neo-liberal oligarchy to contend with as well. In your neck of the woods, bankers can actually go to jail for breaking the law. Too big to fail is another metric for prediction here in the US.
One example is the “civil rights” movement that is happening. Let’s take immigration. Immigrants are actually being taken advantage of by “liberal” policy. By affording undocumented aliens work in the US, and not the protections of citizenship, labor costs in general decrease because citizens compete with the undocumented workforce. The left has created this illusion that our southern neighbors “have a human right” to be surfs in the US.
I guess the grass is always greener though; and things constantly change.
From what small bits I have seen, Zucc dodged an important question or just gave a misleading answer.
It was something about agreeing to provide your data to a third party. Zucc said you do this when you install and run the app. However, your friends didn’t agree to have their data scraped by proxy, via your account. This is what should hang them. I don’t buy any excuse that they didn’t know. The people who wrote the API would have known this was possible.
I guess it is losely covered under the TOC at the end of the day, so they will get away with it.
He looked pretty uncomfortable in there, in his human skin. Does this mean he isn’t the typical pathological lying scumbag we usually see tied up in this stuff?
*edit Or just guilty as hell?
Will Facebook die? Probably not. Myspace is still active.
Will it hemmorage usefull information and people and become less relevant? Probably.