Zuckerberg is Sitting on More Data About What People Want To Do Online Than Anyone Else in the World, Former Facebook Chief Security Officer Says (cnbc.com)

Former Facebook executive Alex Stamos explained how Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is able to consistently make decisions that only make sense with the benefit of hindsight. From a report: "Mark Zuckerberg is sitting on more data about what people want to do online than anyone else in the world," said Stamos, who was speaking at the Washington Post's technology and policy conference on Wednesday evening. He cited the acquisitions of private messaging WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion, and photo-sharing service Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion, as examples of bets "that people think are insane but turn out to be prophetic because he knows the direction the world is going," Stamos said. Further reading: Facebook Used Its VPN App To Track Competitors, Documents Reveal.

Comments

Want to? Than Anyone?

[SuperKendall]

I'll bet Google knows even a bit more about what EVERYONE wants to do online.

But I'd grant that Facebook is probably second in line.

Facebook does probably know more about how everyone REACTS to various things online...

1 good idea, steal people's data. The rest? Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

"He cited the acquisitions of private messaging WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion, and photo-sharing service Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion, as examples of bets" - This is hilarious. He bought Oculus too, it still sucks.

They've killed dozens of little things they've acquired and failed to bring to market their homemade replacement for. 3/4 of the people still pumping their personal data through Facegate are abject complete morons.

This is a moron's opt-in-for-dopamine botnet. Golf clap, let's all give ourselves pats on the back for being goddam thieves right?

Re:1 good idea, steal people's data. The rest? Lol

[Daetrin]

Also, if you're buying companies at a point when they're already worth billions, that's not exactly being "prophetic".

Re:1 good idea, steal people's data. The rest? Lol

[JaredOfEuropa]

Some were saying that paying billions for a messaging service and a photo thingy, which weren't making any money and had no real idea how to monetize their service, was insane. Others understood that the Zuck wasn't paying for the service, but for eyeballs. Not exactly a new concept, but (according to some) he overpaid, by quite a bit. You might say that the "prophetic" part is that Facebook understood that those services were worth a lot more to them than to themselves or to others. It's like buying Boardwalk when you already own Park Place in Monopoly, and you're ready to stick some hotels on those suckers.

FB could have easily duplicated the Instagram and WhatsApp services themselves, and current FB users would have flocked to them... but would they have been able to win over the non-faceBook customers? Especially with Instagram and WhatsApp already out there? There's still plenty of #deletefacebook-ers with a burning hatred for everything Zuckerberg owns, but still find it very hard to completely do away with WhatsApp.

Re:1 good idea, steal people's data. The rest? Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

FourSquare and GroupOn were once valued in billions. At least Facebook recognized they were shit despite the constant media mouthpiece declaring them the greatest thing since Windows 3.1.

Zuckerberg, huh?

[Krishnoid]

I bet there's a lot of people who would like him to take all that data he's sitting on and shove it ... you get the idea.

Re:Zuckerberg, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet there's a lot of people who would like him to take all that data he's sitting on and shove it ... you get the idea.

Leave the android alone. It's just trying to understand human emotion.

Re:Zuckerberg, huh?

[reboot246]

Data? No, I'd like to see him sitting atop a sharpened pole.
~Vlad

Re:Zuckerberg, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Data? No, I'd like to see him sitting atop a sharpened pole.

He doesn't need to be sitting .. it can just be the severed head.

We'd be totally fine with that.

Zuckerfuck is one of the biggest douchebags the tech industry has created so far.

Re:Want to? Than Anyone?

[BringsApples]

I think that those overlords would like to have everyone think that they know more about you than they really do. Even more so, they'd like their paying customers to think the same.

But yes, they do have access to lots of data on us all.

So... All Hail, Lord Zuck?

[rnturn]

``...but turn out to be prophetic because he knows the direction the world is going.''

What a crock. I was forced to use WhatsApp while I was working on a project a while back. We all knew it was connected to Facebook, didn't want anything connected with them on our phones, and tried to suggest an alternative (Signal was what we lobbied for at the time) but were told "Management has spoken". As soon as the contract ended, everyone I worked closely with on the project deleted it. As for Instagram: what a time sink that is. If that's where the world's going, we're all in it. Deep.

Watch porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh.

What about the uninstallable Android app?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it 'prophetic' that he bribed phone manufacturers and telcos into forcing his data collection regime by default into everyone's lives also? If I pick your pocket and steal $20 is that 'prophetic' too? FUCK THIS NOISE!

Yeah ... well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuckerfuck can sit on my cock, or just go fuck himself.

Me, I block the fuck out of any of his shit on every browser I own ... I see no value in any of it, and I refuse to let that shit track me on every site I visit.

Zuckerfuck could get fisted in Time's square live on Facebook, and I still wouldn't use his site.

Re: Yeah ... well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need help, pokey.

That is probably true...

[SuperKendall]

I think that those overlords would like to have everyone think that they know more about you than they really do.

I agree, what they have is a lot of raw data - and as we can all see by the ads we are served, a lot of bad assumptions about who we are. Algorithmically they probably do not know as much as many think they do.

But the potential is there, especially if they chose to target individuals for more careful analysis... that's what makes them more potentially dangerous I think, especially Facebook might have embarrassing content for almost any future political candidate (though I would also argue embarrassing information from the past has been devalued greatly and may not have much impact going forward).

Re:Want to? Than Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet Google knows even a bit more about what EVERYONE wants to do online.

Big booty Puerto Rican goddess

* non-uninstallable

[Anonymous Coward]

* non-uninstallable Android app

Re:Want to? Than Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's still letting Google into their environment for any reason is a moron. Google is simply the devil.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang him and his funders, backers, investors. And by hang I mean good old USA traditional lynching.

Google first

[enriquevagu]

Facebook knows how you want everyone to see you.

Google knows what you really desire.

Re:Google first

[mrwireless]

They both know that.

- They both track you all over the web, so they know which websites you visit.
- They both get fed with data from mobile apps your use.
- They both have access to text you write and photos you upload, which are a feeding ground for algorithms that analyze your interests, intelligence, psychological profile and much more.
- They both have access to your (social) calendar to some degree.
- They both buy data from data brokers to 'improve' the profile they've built about you.

Re:Google first

[LordWabbit2]

So true, I would mod you up if I had any points.

I don't think so.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been on Facebook, browse with as much fingerprinting defense as is practical, and I avoid any place I see people taking pictures.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what I want to do because I'd really like to punch him in his face repeatedly. With brass knuckles.

Tech is becoming more and more myopic.

[laxr5rs]

The fact that these "genius" think they "know more about people than anyone else," is yet another mind game for the analytical thinkers among us. What does he know, exactly? Can he make reliable sociological predictions with this newfound power? Oh, that's right. No one can. So far they can't feed me ads that are interesting to me. It seems like if they knew who I was, they'd be able to assemble adds that spoke to my interests. There's a lot of unjustified bravado flowing around in Tech. I've been in tech for 22 years. I've seen a lot of unmitigated and unsubstantiated bravado from analytic types in tech in the past.

Re: Tech is becoming more and more myopic.

[Anonymous Coward]

But they show you ads for the THING YOU LITERALLY JUST SEARCHED FOR.

It's a magic crystal ball i tells ya.

Not mine

[WCMI92]

I don't use Facebook
I WON'T use Facebook
I always use an Ad Blocker and I do not allow cookies to be set.

Re:Not mine

[Lanthanide]

Facebook is known to create shadow profiles for people that haven't signed up to their service, yet.

Re:Not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia - aw fuck it, in everyplace else too - Facebook uses you.

Know anybody with Facebook on their phone? Congrats! Facebook is building a "shadow profile" about you.

Re:Not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ways to block all kinds of content. Privacy Badger for instance replaces Facebook widgets on websites with a drop-in replacement and blocks domains that seem to be tracking you. uMatrix can block scripts and other content, from the site itself or third party. There are several alternatives. I don't think Facebook can do much profiling if their content is blocked from your browser. I don't think they have code running on every server a browser interacts with.

Re:Not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

> Facebook is known to create shadow profiles for people that haven't signed up to their service, yet

Oh, I know that all too well. I run Firefox with a combination of Adblock, NoScript, RequestPolicy (whitelisting of requests to other sites) and CookieSafe which should, when combined, completely nuke any of their direct attempts at tracking. I've tried very hard to avoid handing out contact details to anyone who uses any Farcebook software on their phone (my own phone runs LineageOS with absolutely no Google infection, and I'm quite happy to go back to my old Nokia phone with a real keypad if necessary). And I have absolutely never once touched any social media stuff myself.

And I still don't know if that's enough. I don't know how far their tentacles reach into other systems. I can't check either, because for systems like this, even searching to see whether something exists will create a data point for that something in this system.

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuck has an enormous number of data points on like, a billion people. So?

All that means is that he knows the same thing as everyone else does about everyone else.

They download porn and jack/jane off to it. They watch video compilations of people getting injured in embarrassing and (therefore hilarious) ways. They order pizza and dildoes and copies of the Complete Works of Steven King. They open a private or incognito-mode browser instance, and read about how to treat disgusting repulsive skin lesions and herpes outbreaks, then when they’re sure that they learned what they came to find out, they log off the computer, reformat all its disk drives or SSDs, then set it on fire, and hurl it, still blazing, over a cliff.

Then they’ll realize that Mothers Day was last week, and text apologies for missing it to their moms.

The information Facebook allegedly has in its possession is, i suspect, next to worthless, because we all already know all about it.

Re: And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that is a pretty important point.

I've personally been part of a few projects where management asks for basically way too much data (collection) than necessary and eventually the data overload is so much that it becomes effectively useless and gets all thrown out.

Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

For $20 billion dollars, you could just ask them, LOL

The Daily Zuck Outrage

[imperious_rex]

Every day on /. there seems to be some new outrage about Facebook. And every day I'm delighted that I don't have a Facebook account.

Re:The Daily Zuck Outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I, too, have never had nor ever will have a Facebook account.

But what about the Dud Acquisitions?

[corezz]

Why does the article fail to mention the duds of Zuckerberg's acquisitions? For every WhatsApp or Instagram there are Facebook's disaster bets like:

MailRank, Nextstop, Spool, ParaKey, Snaptu, FriendFeed, Octazen, Divvyshot, ShareGrove, Zenbe, Chai Labs, Hot Potato, Drop.io, Rel8tion, Beluga, RecRec, DayTum, Sofa, Push Pop, Friend.ly, Strobe, Gowalla, Caffeinatedmind, Tagtile, Glancee, Karma, Acrylic, Threadsy

Zuckerberg insight? More like a ton of expendable cash, no consequences for using it, and the increased statistical probability of hitting on a winner eventually.

Re:But what about the Dud Acquisitions?

[Lanthanide]

Those things are not mentioned because they don't fit this narrative.

Re:But what about the Dud Acquisitions?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll probably find with a little digging most if not all of those "failures" was just a method of moving stockholder cash to friends and family.

I just wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he ever bang that hot little Asian wife of his?

the acquisition of Whatsapp makes sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

On what planet? Is it throwing off a billion dollars in profit a year? Has it done that since the year the Zuck bought it? If not, it does not make any financial sense. It only made sense to kill a competitor.

Re:the acquisition of Whatsapp makes sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many people use facebook on desktop but never on the phone? Probably hundreds millions people.
So with Whatsapp as a "meta phone carrier" of sorts they get to spy on phone use of their users.
Instagram may be even more obvious : if users shoot photo on their phones and upload them through instagram instead of through facebook, then facebook would miss data about that interaction. This would be a problem if the user uses instagram on phone and facebook on desktop (where the user would publish pictures from instagram to facebook, using the keyboard and mouse). So, failbook decides to completely own instagram. One more entry point for the octopus.

(I never used instragram, I thought it was for 14-year-old girls..)

Re: YOU TELL A LIE UNDER OATH AND YOU ARE A CRIMIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot Soros shills sure do hate SuperKendall.

Top 5

[Anonymous Coward]

1. bitch
2. porn
3. post selfies
4. post cat and food photos
5. click "like"

Who cares

With all that money

[Shotgun]

With all the money he's got, tell him to get his lazy ass up and by a decent chair. Quit sitting on the data storage box.

ORLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not MY data. On april, it's the 4 year anniversary of my deleted facebook account.

Cheers!

He knew this post would happen

[Halloran]

He used the benefit of his data trove to know this post was going to be made on Slashdot...

Ass kissing article

[Tough Love]

This article is just out to kiss Zuckerberg's ass. As a counterexample we have the Oculus acquisition, distinctly unprophetic. No, the world is not planning to do all its interpersonal interaction wearing head mounted displays. Reminds of of "Grand Architect Gates" where Gates was held up as somehow visionary, despite evidence to the contrary. Result: the Longhorn fiasco.

Zuckerberg is just a dickhead voyeur with PHP skills who won the lottery.