Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Apologizes For the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says He Isn't Opposed To Regulation (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg apologized on Wednesday evening for his company's handling of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. "This was a major breach of trust and I'm really sorry this happened," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again." Zuckerberg's comments reflected the first time he apologized following an uproar over how Facebook allowed third-party developers to access user data. Earlier in the day, Zuckerberg wrote a Facebook post in which he said the company had made mistakes in its handling of the Cambridge Analytica data revelations. The company laid out a multipart plan designed to reduce the amount of data shared by users with outside developers, and said it would audit some developers who had access to large troves of data before earlier restrictions were implemented in 2014. Zuckerberg also told CNN that he is not totally opposed to regulation. "I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
Wonder what was in these boxes ?
https://twitter.com/bercbon4/status/976444112139366400
The Consvervative party in the UK used Cambridge Analalytica to help them during their election, is it a wonder it is taking so long to get a warrant ?
Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.
>' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
You did motherfucker!!
Take some damn responsibility for your actions. You think those billions were free? With great something, something something, something? How does that go again?
ffs.
Now that thousands of apps have downloaded it, and each has backed it up to multiple locations, it should be simplicity itself to stuff that cat right back into its bag.
foreign election influence has been a mainstay of US foreign policy for sixty years. The same politicians without term limits who snored thorugh anti-communist proxy wars and endless US efforts to topple legitimate foreign governments are somehow entitled to have their musings on Facebook taken seriously? we wrote the book on this kind of chicanery and now its come home to roost.
The fact of life we deal with now under the cheeto in chief is that Hillary clinton was a turd of a candidate being rammed through primaries like some kind of unstoppable force. The email scandal, her involvement with the US governments sabotage of haitian minimum wage, and her untenable platform of lecturing blue collar workers on austerity while dressed in a five thousand dollar dress should easily have cost her delegates. Sanders was the stronger candidate who tackled issues like Wall Street,climate and Jobs, but delegates filed in lock step with Clinton because it was just "her time?" Give me a break.
Good people go to bed earlier.
From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.
Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.
TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
From my post on this last article:
I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
He might be uncomfortable with it, but he probably accepts it is better PR and business just to go with it. At least this way he can have a meaningful conversation as to what appropriate regulation is?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
From my post on this last article:
I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
Having built a large company with a huge infrastructure. A set of regulations would probably hit a small portion of its budget, while having such rules in effect would raise the bar for any future competitors.
Imagine Facebook trying to fight off MySpace, if it needed to comply with so many regulations from the start.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Don't be silly. "Having a meaningful conversation" here means he gets to set ("help shape") the rules.
Rules mean, to a large company, a couple extra warm bodies in the compliance department. Changing the rules means greasing the wheels, for which they have the means. For a small company those same rules might well mean that the whole thing becomes a non-starter. So rules keep the competition out. So of course he isn't opposed to rules. He's got the means to make them work for him.
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors. If anything the software and hardware are easier to set up today than they were 15 years ago. The only issue is getting your friends to try something new and younger people are doing that all the time so you could see attrition away from Facebook.
Having more regulations would raise the cost of compliance and give Facebook a way to stomp out competition either before it gets started or as it gets big enough to be slowed down by regulators and the cost of compliance.
How about Facebook stop performing psychological experiments on people for starters: https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Intentionally harming their users just to see if they can.
He is in no way sorry about this or the data they have collected.
He is sorry they got caught.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
One also needs to consider that regulations also do a good deal to keep new competitors out of a market just as they curtail existing players. Social media may look like a juicy target for disruption or the incumbents ripe for toppling, but if a new entrant need jump through all manner of hoops to do so, they may turn their sites elsewhere.
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors.
To the contrary, there is a tremendous barrier for entry. A social network's value to a user is dependent on how many people are already signed up. A network starting up-- with by definition zero users-- has no value; it will basically have to invest money to effectively pay people to join until it has enough users to attract other users.
The same is true for many systems-- dating services, for example.
It's a vastly unstable system-- little operations stay little, and big operations grow nearly in proportion to their bigness.
Oh I agree. Fox News just fawned over obamas every move, praising him constantly. They never really dig in to find any issues, but that's why they eventually ditched the whole "fair and balanced" motto. So at least they were honest about it.
By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not so sure he's lying. There's a handful of ways that regulating social media could help out facebook. They'd have to pay to jump through the hoops to meet compliance, whatever that looks like..... but so would all the competition. Imagine you're 4 guys in college cooking up a facebook-killer like every damn fool was doing ~5 years ago. Now you're going to fail because you have zero hope of complying, or even affording to know if you comply, with the laws and regulation surrounding the industry. (Where as before you were going to fail because everyone liked facebook and they were the dominant player). With regulation, even if it sounds like it would make them behave better, it's a deathknell for competition. A barrier to entry. If facebook is legitimately worried about competition taking away their user-base (their product), then digging themselves in with some regulation makes sense.
Also I have zero faith in congress or the FCC having any clue how to regulation Tech, information, the Internet, or social media. He might just be bluffing. It's an easy bluff when you know the other guy has a single pair of jacks.
... because it's a goddam membership naivete problem.
Facebook could spend more time/money educating its membership regarding the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
Most people have grown up with the Internet and it's incorrect to suggest that they are duped.
We don't fall for propaganda -- we embrace it and love it and feed it -- and we amplify whatever fits our world view.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It's called the network effect.
Sort of like when Leonardo DaVinci invented the telephone.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."