Facebook CEO Zuckerberg conspicuously absent as data scandal grows(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Facebook CEO Zuckerberg conspicuously absent as data scandal grows
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-maduro-petro-bedawi-zuckerberg-1.4583832
95 comments
I think it was unlikely he'd have gone Republican, and Democrats would have been wary about going with a billionaire in 45's wake. He was probably a non-starter already.
Sheryl Sandberg would help Zuck get the feminist vote because of the "Lean In" movement
> Democrats would have been wary about going with a billionaire in 45's wake
The draft Oprah people would disagree with that statement.
The draft Oprah people would disagree with that statement.
> Democrats would have been wary about going with a billionaire in 45's wake
Given that the dems seem to do anything they can to avoid actually winning elections, I'd have to agree
Given that the dems seem to do anything they can to avoid actually winning elections, I'd have to agree
jrs95(2)
Why should Zuckerberg unnecessarily antagonize one half of the voters by becoming a party's candidate? No, Zuckerberg's best bet would be to run as an independent. Both parties are in shambles anyway and would be more a liability than a help for someone like him.
Zuckerberg is too smart to think a third party candidate has any chance of winning. The parties being in shambles does nothing to change that, and if anything it's going to heighten tribal affiliation with those two labels.
I definitely think that both mainstream parties being in shambles absolute does have an impact on the chance of a third party candidate winning.
If there was any election that a third party had a chance, it would be next.
Did it ever have a real chance?
They were planning to use Cambridge Analytica to make it happen /s
In all reality, the common public is probably indifferent to his running, at this point, and I believe this current series of events hasn't changed much.
In all reality, the common public is probably indifferent to his running, at this point, and I believe this current series of events hasn't changed much.
With Trump's win it feels wrong to rule anyone out this early.
It was easy enough to see Trump coming ahead of time though. He’s been talking on and off about running for a long time, and that speech more recently where he called the Chinese “motherfuckers” in particular should have made it clear that what he might do could be effective. Once you accept that he’s running and what his style would be like, it’s easy to see him getting the nomination.
It’s not easy to see Zuckerberg getting the nomination under pretty much any circumstances.
It’s not easy to see Zuckerberg getting the nomination under pretty much any circumstances.
The major sports books had him as a 4:1 underdog on the afternoon of election day.
It's easy to say in hindsight but nobody gave the guy much of a chance until it was too late.
It's easy to say in hindsight but nobody gave the guy much of a chance until it was too late.
As a lifelong fan of the Buffalo Bills, 4:1 underdog chances sounds pretty good.
Fair enough. I suppose people mostly felt the same way about Trump winning a GOP primary as I do about Zuck winning a Democratic primary, too.
Most people didn't think Trump had a chance either.
I don’t think he was ever running for President. I think he was realizing that Facebook CEO is a position of more political influence than perhaps even the US President.
It's not
Zuckerberg can’t launch nukes but he can manipulate the emotions and attitudes of entire countries and societies. In many way his power is more terrifying because he can exercise it in secret and with no repercussions. I mean, if this Cambridge Analytica story is to be believed, he had a large influence in selecting Trump as president, and continues to have this power even if Cambridge Analytica does not.
His power is not more terrifying in any way
He is forced to testify to the EU and Congress about how he looked the other way about his massive data collection system.
He's not forced to testify to the EU (or the UK), though to not do so may be undesirable.
That's a distinction without a difference, if there ever was one.
[deleted]
I would suppose with a video like https://twitter.com/Uncle_Jimbo/status/976087974109736960 floating around, it does make for some uncomfortable questions.
You cannot keep saying you are neutral when you clearly get outraged when one side does something you let the other side do. Particularly when you shouldn't of let anybody do it in the first place.
You cannot keep saying you are neutral when you clearly get outraged when one side does something you let the other side do. Particularly when you shouldn't of let anybody do it in the first place.
Yeah, the lid was blown wide open and if Facebook has to answer to why it turned a blind eye to this Cambridge Analytica scandal they should also have to answer to how their platform was used by the Democrats in 2008 and 2012.
It's well known that the Obama campaign used big data to gain an advantage in those elections. It's looking like they were just doing the same thing with Facebook's data too.
It's well known that the Obama campaign used big data to gain an advantage in those elections. It's looking like they were just doing the same thing with Facebook's data too.
>It's looking like they were just doing the same thing with Facebook's data too
Crafting lies into propaganda? No, I don't see them doing the same thing at all.
Crafting lies into propaganda? No, I don't see them doing the same thing at all.
Obama did the same thing in 2012.
"The campaign didn’t go into much detail, at the time, about exactly how it used Facebook. But St. Clair put it in fairly stark terms when I talked to him at A.M.G.’s temporary offices in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in April. They started with a list that grew to a million people who had signed into the campaign Web site through Facebook. When people opted to do so, they were met with a prompt asking to grant the campaign permission to scan their Facebook friends lists, their photos and other personal information. In another prompt, the campaign asked for access to the users’ Facebook news feeds, which 25 percent declined, St. Clair said.
Once permission was granted, the campaign had access to millions of names and faces they could match against their lists of persuadable voters, potential donors, unregistered voters and so on. “It would take us 5 to 10 seconds to get a friends list and match it against the voter list,” St. Clair said. They found matches about 50 percent of the time, he said. But the campaign’s ultimate goal was to deputize the closest Obama-supporting friends of voters who were wavering in their affections for the president. “We would grab the top 50 you were most active with and then crawl their wall” to figure out who were most likely to be their real-life friends, not just casual Facebook acquaintances. St. Clair, a former high-school marching-band member who now wears a leather Diesel jacket, explained: “We asked to see photos but really we were looking for who were tagged in photos with you, which was a really great way to dredge up old college friends — and ex-girlfriends,” he said." [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
"The campaign didn’t go into much detail, at the time, about exactly how it used Facebook. But St. Clair put it in fairly stark terms when I talked to him at A.M.G.’s temporary offices in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in April. They started with a list that grew to a million people who had signed into the campaign Web site through Facebook. When people opted to do so, they were met with a prompt asking to grant the campaign permission to scan their Facebook friends lists, their photos and other personal information. In another prompt, the campaign asked for access to the users’ Facebook news feeds, which 25 percent declined, St. Clair said.
Once permission was granted, the campaign had access to millions of names and faces they could match against their lists of persuadable voters, potential donors, unregistered voters and so on. “It would take us 5 to 10 seconds to get a friends list and match it against the voter list,” St. Clair said. They found matches about 50 percent of the time, he said. But the campaign’s ultimate goal was to deputize the closest Obama-supporting friends of voters who were wavering in their affections for the president. “We would grab the top 50 you were most active with and then crawl their wall” to figure out who were most likely to be their real-life friends, not just casual Facebook acquaintances. St. Clair, a former high-school marching-band member who now wears a leather Diesel jacket, explained: “We asked to see photos but really we were looking for who were tagged in photos with you, which was a really great way to dredge up old college friends — and ex-girlfriends,” he said." [1]
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
What you describe is fundamentally different than building psychological profiles of the entire electorate using stolen data, then finding mentally unstable swing voters, and serving them self-deleting, libelous advertisements designed to exploit their mental illness to get them to vote your way.
That is the service that Cambridge Analytica sells. It was used to swing the brexit vote and by the Trump campaign.
CA was replicating this strategy on multiple continents until Facebook (hopefully) pulled the plug.
That is the service that Cambridge Analytica sells. It was used to swing the brexit vote and by the Trump campaign.
CA was replicating this strategy on multiple continents until Facebook (hopefully) pulled the plug.
To add some more color to your comment... Yes there is a difference between what and how Obama used social media and how Trump did. Obama used social media on a "positive" way, using it to get word out and getting people to the polls and voting. Trump used social media on a "negative" manner. Stirring up and spreading FUD, anger, and division... Working to discourage people from voting. I wouldn't doubt it if the FB data was cross referenced with voter registration rolls to challenge and remove people likely to vote Democrat or for Hillary.
If Zuckerberg would ever has the balls to do right with facebook...
He got lucky in life, there is not much at how he became what he is by having any special character or much of experience.
He got lucky in life, there is not much at how he became what he is by having any special character or much of experience.
jrs235(1)
>He got lucky in life, there is not much at how he became what he is by having any special character or much of experience.
I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers.
I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers.
Zuck isn't absent. He's just following the tried and true method of letting enough time pass by so that the public loses interest and moves on to the next big thing. Three months from now this will all be forgotten and it's back to business as usual.
What? Trump will be out of office, and brexit cancelled in three months?
(I actually agree with your point, but think it is wishful thinking on FB’s part)
(I actually agree with your point, but think it is wishful thinking on FB’s part)
Could somebody give me a breakdown of the allegations? What exactly have they done with the data.
The allegations against Facebook are that for a period of several years they turned a blind eye to rampant Developer abuse of their API, allowing Political organizations (and others) to download massive amounts of Facebook user data.
Facebook also continuously marginalized their Chief Security Officer who routinely complained about the API loopholes, were caught informing employees of a "don't ask don't know therefore no liability" quasi-official policy towards the widespread abuse (don't rock the advertising/business boat), and eventually reduced the CSO's staff from 120 to 3 and role to what appears to be "tweeting pre-approved pro-Facebook messages".
The FTC is now investigating if Facebook has violated it's 2011 FTC privacy mandate, something which carries fines in the millions per event range I believe (i.e. trillions of USD in fines for this size of privacy mandate failure)
Facebook also continuously marginalized their Chief Security Officer who routinely complained about the API loopholes, were caught informing employees of a "don't ask don't know therefore no liability" quasi-official policy towards the widespread abuse (don't rock the advertising/business boat), and eventually reduced the CSO's staff from 120 to 3 and role to what appears to be "tweeting pre-approved pro-Facebook messages".
The FTC is now investigating if Facebook has violated it's 2011 FTC privacy mandate, something which carries fines in the millions per event range I believe (i.e. trillions of USD in fines for this size of privacy mandate failure)
Wow a trillion dollar fine seems almost unthinkable - there are only around 10 trillion dollars in circulation, and with that shared among apple google facebook and the rest of the entire country its hard to imagine facebook could afford to pay
I read the reduction in the CSO's staff as a prelude to his leaving the company, not as a "nerfing" to his role.
His team has been reassigned in december already:
"By December 2017, Mr. Stamos, who reports to Facebook’s general counsel, proposed that he report directly to higher-ups. Facebook executives rejected that proposal and instead reassigned Mr. Stamos’s team"
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-al...
"By December 2017, Mr. Stamos, who reports to Facebook’s general counsel, proposed that he report directly to higher-ups. Facebook executives rejected that proposal and instead reassigned Mr. Stamos’s team"
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-al...
Damn. This reeks of higher-ups knowing what was going on (or taking advice from malvolent scrupulous people) in order to maintain plausible deniability.
He wanted to leave after he was reassigned - in other words, because he was reassigned. They convinced him to stay because him quitting then would have looked bad for the company. That's what 7 sources told the NYT.
What I don't understand is, why would they turn a blind eye to abuse of their developer API if they offer their API for free and they sell user data -- which I assume is anonymized? -- to advertisers? Wouldn't that diminish revenue if advertisers could have just used the API to get around this?
Please correct any mistaken assumptions I might have about their business model.
Please correct any mistaken assumptions I might have about their business model.
This is all speculation:
1. While the data is valuable, you still need a medium for your ads. One without the other is way less valuable. If you had user data for 50M users, today, how would you monetize it? Facebook had the News Feed and Instagram giving you a stage to operate on that data.
2. Following 1.), a lot of that "stolen" data was used to buy more effective FB Ads. Cambridge Analytica didn't "steal" the user data to sell to blackhats. They used it to craft messaging on Facebook.
All in all, user data is relatively worthless to most advertisers unless its actionable. Even if facebook gave you the data, the fastest way of monetizing it was to buy more facebook ads. It's relatively more difficult to extract user data from FB and then use that data to buy Twitter ads.
1. While the data is valuable, you still need a medium for your ads. One without the other is way less valuable. If you had user data for 50M users, today, how would you monetize it? Facebook had the News Feed and Instagram giving you a stage to operate on that data.
2. Following 1.), a lot of that "stolen" data was used to buy more effective FB Ads. Cambridge Analytica didn't "steal" the user data to sell to blackhats. They used it to craft messaging on Facebook.
All in all, user data is relatively worthless to most advertisers unless its actionable. Even if facebook gave you the data, the fastest way of monetizing it was to buy more facebook ads. It's relatively more difficult to extract user data from FB and then use that data to buy Twitter ads.
That's a really good point with respect to advertisers. Even on the competitor level, I'm not sure how they would use that data.
So worst case scenario is a conflict of interests between user privacy and business revenue. I think if Facebook wants to take effective action to correct this, they'll go beyond simply restricting the API, and give users options to limit which data of theirs they want to let their friends expose to third parties, because even when the API is shut down, someone willing to violate the terms of service can do quite a bit of data harvesting using fake profiles and social engineering to get people to add those profiles if some of the data seems plausible.
Granted, this method is slower, but still possible, and I think currently being exploited based on friend requests I've received through friends. I've asked friends if they knew the person, and they said they weren't sure, but they might because the information seemed similar; this is the same concept as a phone call spam technique known as "Neighbor Spoofing".
So worst case scenario is a conflict of interests between user privacy and business revenue. I think if Facebook wants to take effective action to correct this, they'll go beyond simply restricting the API, and give users options to limit which data of theirs they want to let their friends expose to third parties, because even when the API is shut down, someone willing to violate the terms of service can do quite a bit of data harvesting using fake profiles and social engineering to get people to add those profiles if some of the data seems plausible.
Granted, this method is slower, but still possible, and I think currently being exploited based on friend requests I've received through friends. I've asked friends if they knew the person, and they said they weren't sure, but they might because the information seemed similar; this is the same concept as a phone call spam technique known as "Neighbor Spoofing".
> Please correct any mistaken assumptions I might have about their business model.
Facebook's business model is curious. They took $200 million in Russian money (Yuri Milner) and that came with an enthralled messaging from Zuckerberg, about how they (the Russian investors) had a "unique perspective" on monetizing social networks.
I'm not sure anyone outside of those circles knows what Facebook's actual business model really is.
Citations: https://qz.com/1121238/who-is-yuri-milner-the-russian-billio...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-faceboo...
Facebook's business model is curious. They took $200 million in Russian money (Yuri Milner) and that came with an enthralled messaging from Zuckerberg, about how they (the Russian investors) had a "unique perspective" on monetizing social networks.
I'm not sure anyone outside of those circles knows what Facebook's actual business model really is.
Citations: https://qz.com/1121238/who-is-yuri-milner-the-russian-billio...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/world/yuri-milner-faceboo...
FB's 'business model' is of primarily of journalistic, academic and legal interest. It's an anti-democratic corporate surveillance outfit. How it makes its money will be of interest to regulators and prosecutors, but is of marginal concern elsewhere.
The important questions are more like: (for personal safety) how to reduce contact with FB collaborators, and (for society's safety) how to put the organisation itself out of business.
The important questions are more like: (for personal safety) how to reduce contact with FB collaborators, and (for society's safety) how to put the organisation itself out of business.
The data is not anonymized. If you install an app that requests access to your data and the data of your friends, then it's not anonymized. How could it be? That company would have the exact links between you, under your real name, and all of the friends linked to you, under their real names.
Multiply this by a million.
Multiply this by a million.
Oh yeah, I know the data gathered through the API isn't anonymized, but I was referring to what they sell to advertisers who don't use the API and just do business directly with Facebook, unless they don't sell any data directly to advertisers and advertisers just have to put in place certain metrics for whom they would like to target.
Cambridge analytica is an investment of Robert Mercer. Mercer also donates to the Trump campaign. Steve Bannon headed the CA operation to collect user data from social media for the sole purpose of "gaming" the electorate system (ALL confirmed by the Canadian CA whistleblower). Kushner hired CA to work for the Trump campaign. CA admitted (on tape) they broke election laws and actively obstruct justice by not keeping evidence (paper trail). They also admitted they ran the "entire digital campaign" for Trump Campaign. Board of CA quickly suspends CEO as of today.
Mark currently getting away as an accomplice to the murder of our democracy.
Mark currently getting away as an accomplice to the murder of our democracy.
I've posted a quote from this article below that details how Obama's 2012 campaign did practically the same thing Cambridge Analytica is being accused of. [1]
So data mining Facebook has being going on for a while, except that the MSM and Silicon Valley supported it because it favored Obama.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
So data mining Facebook has being going on for a while, except that the MSM and Silicon Valley supported it because it favored Obama.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
The use of analytics does not make it practically the same thing. The same couple articles about the Obama campaign keep getting posted on all the CA post that hit the front page even after they're shown to be different.
There is a 4 part documentary by Channel 4 [right here](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=facebook+allegations+zuckerberg)
/s
/s
Companies give the silent treatment all the time but add on how terrible Zuckerberg is at public relations and even I really have trouble blaming Facebook for keeping him stashed away right now.
He's finally learning that you can't duck, spin, and charm your way out of everything.
Charm?
On Capitol Hill, Zuckerberg is expected to meet Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Republican leaders, Senate Commerce panel Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and other committee members, and the top four House Republican leaders. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is also hosting a meeting with Zuckerberg Thursday focused on immigration, according to a Democratic aide. Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren of California, Joe Crowley and Steve Israel of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and John Yarmuth of Kentucky have been invited to the gathering. A House Republican aide said that while immigration may come up with Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans, it is not the sole purpose of their session.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/mark-zuckerberg-dc-09...
And in other countries too:
Facebook's Zuckerberg meets propaganda czar in China charm drive: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-facebook-idUSKCN0WL...
Facebook's German Charm Offensive: https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies/facebooks-german-c...
And in other countries too:
Facebook's Zuckerberg meets propaganda czar in China charm drive: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-facebook-idUSKCN0WL...
Facebook's German Charm Offensive: https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies/facebooks-german-c...
He is to charm what Mother Theresa was to the tech world. (no disrespect intended)
Personally, I think he is doing the right thing. The more fb communicates the more the press is going after them. At this pt, fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder to go after since they tend to dig into smaller details anyways to get more views.
A good counter example is Twitter which had equal if not more exposure on Russian ads but they have kept mum. And no one is going after them.
A good counter example is Twitter which had equal if not more exposure on Russian ads but they have kept mum. And no one is going after them.
> Personally, I think he is doing the right thing.
Right for who?
> fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder
Oh I see. Right for Facebook's public image. Wrong for their customers which have a right to know what the hell Facebook has been doing with their data.
Right for who?
> fb should just stop communicating as that will give media less fodder
Oh I see. Right for Facebook's public image. Wrong for their customers which have a right to know what the hell Facebook has been doing with their data.
I think you mean "Users" instead of "Customers".
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
You're correct, and I should have made that clear. Unfortunately it's too late to edit my comment.
Facebook's customers aren't the ones whose data Facebook has been misusing.
As a rule, a company's customers are revenue sources.
As a rule, a company's customers are revenue sources.
Why a company like FB would do anything right for their customer ? They never did. It was always about FB. How does that surprises you ? They are not Mozilla.
It doesn't surprise me.
It surprises me that people on HN try to defend their business model.
There are two ways to weather a crisis: get out in front of it or keep quiet and hope people move on.
The problem in this case is that FB represents a direct threat to the media businesses, and they are incentivized to drag out the issue as long as necessary
The problem in this case is that FB represents a direct threat to the media businesses, and they are incentivized to drag out the issue as long as necessary
"The problem in this case is that FB represents a direct threat to the media businesses, and they are incentivized to drag out the issue as long as necessary"
Maybe the problem is that they've actually done something objectionable here, and it's not just a conspiracy against them.
Maybe the problem is that they've actually done something objectionable here, and it's not just a conspiracy against them.
> Maybe the problem is that they've actually done something objectionable here, and it's not just a conspiracy against them.
That is very clear, and I think you missed the point.
We've seen numerous examples recently, including Equifax and Wells Fargo and Mylan, of objectionable situations where the strategy of "say as little as possible" allowed the companies to move on and show even greater profits. None of those companies represent a threat to the media entities. What makes the current Facebook situation different from those is the added incentives.
That is very clear, and I think you missed the point.
We've seen numerous examples recently, including Equifax and Wells Fargo and Mylan, of objectionable situations where the strategy of "say as little as possible" allowed the companies to move on and show even greater profits. None of those companies represent a threat to the media entities. What makes the current Facebook situation different from those is the added incentives.
I don't grant your premise. All three of those examples were (and continue to be) excoriated by the media for weeks. So far, Facebook has had a bad weekend. We're a long way from media conspiracy.
In other words, nothing here is out of the ordinary.
In other words, nothing here is out of the ordinary.
Now what?