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."
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.
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.
This is why limiting campaign contributions from corporations, PACs, and even individuals is SO important-- they can't buy these "edges" if they can't afford them.
Removing the ability for national parties to fund local elections is important, too, so that micro-targeting specific districts won't cause legislative majorities that drag down the goals of government into squabbling orthodox masses of mud.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.