Facebook is yet again in hot water over user data:
Facebook gave at least 60 device manufacturers, including Apple, Blackberry, Samsung, Amazon, and Microsoft, access to huge amounts of data about users and their friends, the New York Times reported on Sunday. These companies in some cases received access to information about a user’s religion, political views, relationship statuses, and other personal details. The manufacturers also reportedly got access to information on users’ friends, even if they tried to prohibit their data from being shared with third parties.
...the fuck?
Seriously, do they give this shit out to anyone who asks?
Facebook is yet again in hot water over user data:
Facebook gave at least 60 device manufacturers, including Apple, Blackberry, Samsung, Amazon, and Microsoft, access to huge amounts of data about users and their friends, the New York Times reported on Sunday. These companies in some cases received access to information about a user’s religion, political views, relationship statuses, and other personal details. The manufacturers also reportedly got access to information on users’ friends, even if they tried to prohibit their data from being shared with third parties.
...the fuck?
Seriously, do they give this shit out to anyone who asks?
Cambridge Analytica, the collapsed political consultancy at the centre of an international storm over the misuse of Facebook data, had the enthusiastic backing of senior British government officials as it tried to position itself as a player in Donald Trump's Washington, BuzzFeed News has learned.
"No No, go ahead. Burn all of those files. We'll wait. It's fine. Oh? Are you done getting rid of evidence? Okay, now we'll allow an order to investigate you."
For ten days in May, a Facebook “bug” changed the default privacy settings of new posts for as many as 14 million users, Recode reports. As a result, posts meant to be shared privately may have instead been shared publicly.
Typically, users can opt to make all their Facebook posts private, meaning only certain friends can see them. For these users, each post they write is by default not shared publicly, unless they individually choose to do so. For ten days, however, a bug caused the privacy settings for individual posts to default to public. While the affected users could individually change the settings for each post to private before publishing, users who had opted into more private sharing settings may not have noticed their default settings had changed. Facebook says it’s since fixed the bug.
It's almost like the company doesn't actually believe in privacy.
For ten days in May, a Facebook “bug” changed the default privacy settings of new posts for as many as 14 million users, Recode reports. As a result, posts meant to be shared privately may have instead been shared publicly.
Typically, users can opt to make all their Facebook posts private, meaning only certain friends can see them. For these users, each post they write is by default not shared publicly, unless they individually choose to do so. For ten days, however, a bug caused the privacy settings for individual posts to default to public. While the affected users could individually change the settings for each post to private before publishing, users who had opted into more private sharing settings may not have noticed their default settings had changed. Facebook says it’s since fixed the bug.
It's almost like the company doesn't actually believe in privacy.
Or that like everyone else they do a shit job of QA and do releases by schedule rather than when things are actually done and properly vetted. Because absolute shit head's get to tell tech when they are done, and will make their lives 24/7 shit if they give any pushback.
For ten days in May, a Facebook “bug” changed the default privacy settings of new posts for as many as 14 million users, Recode reports. As a result, posts meant to be shared privately may have instead been shared publicly.
Typically, users can opt to make all their Facebook posts private, meaning only certain friends can see them. For these users, each post they write is by default not shared publicly, unless they individually choose to do so. For ten days, however, a bug caused the privacy settings for individual posts to default to public. While the affected users could individually change the settings for each post to private before publishing, users who had opted into more private sharing settings may not have noticed their default settings had changed. Facebook says it’s since fixed the bug.
It's almost like the company doesn't actually believe in privacy.
Or that like everyone else they do a shit job of QA and do releases by schedule rather than when things are actually done and properly vetted. Because absolute shit head's get to tell tech when they are done, and will make their lives 24/7 shit if they give any pushback.
Allowing stuff like that to happen shows that the company doesn’t “believe in privacy” (enough to do it right)
For ten days in May, a Facebook “bug” changed the default privacy settings of new posts for as many as 14 million users, Recode reports. As a result, posts meant to be shared privately may have instead been shared publicly.
Typically, users can opt to make all their Facebook posts private, meaning only certain friends can see them. For these users, each post they write is by default not shared publicly, unless they individually choose to do so. For ten days, however, a bug caused the privacy settings for individual posts to default to public. While the affected users could individually change the settings for each post to private before publishing, users who had opted into more private sharing settings may not have noticed their default settings had changed. Facebook says it’s since fixed the bug.
It's almost like the company doesn't actually believe in privacy.
Or that like everyone else they do a shit job of QA and do releases by schedule rather than when things are actually done and properly vetted. Because absolute shit head's get to tell tech when they are done, and will make their lives 24/7 shit if they give any pushback.
Allowing stuff like that to happen shows that the company doesn’t “believe in privacy” (enough to do it right)
Fair enough i amend my previous statement:
I bet that like everyone else they do a shit job of QA and do releases by schedule rather than when things are actually done and properly vetted. Because absolute shit head's get to tell tech when they are done, and will make their lives 24/7 shit if they give any pushback.
A company run by former officials at Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm brought down by a scandal over how it obtained Facebook users’ private data, has quietly been working for President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election effort, The Associated Press has learned.
Oczkowski denied a link to the Trump campaign, but acknowledged that his new firm has agreed to do 2018 campaign work for the Republican National Committee. Oczkowski led the Cambridge Analytica data team which worked on Trump’s successful 2016 campaign.
The AP confirmed that at least four former Cambridge Analytica employees are affiliated with Data Propria, a new company specializing in voter and consumer targeting work similar to Cambridge Analytica’s efforts before its collapse. The company’s former head of product, Matt Oczkowski, leads the new firm, which also includes Cambridge Analytica’s former chief data scientist.
The AP learned of Data Propria’s role in Trump’s re-election effort as a result of conversations held with political contacts and prospective clients in recent weeks by Oczkowski. In one such conversation, which took place in a public place and was overheard by two AP reporters, Oczkowski said he and and Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, were “doing the president’s work for 2020.”
..."Facebook isn’t a mind-control ray. It’s a tool for finding people who possess uncommon, hard-to-locate traits, whether that’s “person thinking of buying a new refrigerator,” “person with the same rare disease as you,” or “person who might participate in a genocidal pogrom,” and then pitching them on a nice side-by-side or some tiki torches, while showing them social proof of the desirability of their course of action, in the form of other people (or bots) that are doing the same thing, so they feel like they’re part of a crowd."...
Facebook gets a 500,000 gbp wakeup call from the UK ICO, the maximum fine allowed under the previous law. Had this happened today, it could be a bit more.
Guardian reporter:
Also bad times for CA's former CEO, and possibly some FEC violations.
Ms Denham told the Financial Times that Cambridge Analytica’s data had been accessed from other countries, including Russia. The ICO will conduct an audit of University of Cambridge’s Psychometrics Centre, which researched social analytics using Facebook data.
The revelations could reopen the debate over how far Facebook’s data travelled and how it was used. Among its findings, the ICO said that US voter data had been processed in the UK by British employees of Cambridge Analytica. US election rules restrict the work that can be carried out on domestic political campaigns by foreign nationals.
Directors of SCL Elections, the Cambridge Analytica parent, which include former chief executive Alexander Nix, could face criminal prosecution, according to Ms Denham.
It's gonna be awesome when-not-if FB gets hit with the latter set of fines the next time they screw something like this up.
(Tangentially, I love that we're starting to see corporate penalties legislated in terms like "percentage of global turnover" rather than a fixed number. If the hurt is a tangible chunk of a company's worth and scales with the company, it's possible that they'll start seeing fines as something to avoid rather than a minor business expense.)
Fixed max fines for everybody no matter how rich or poor instead of fines based on income always seemed weird to me.
A lot of them predated the kind of huge-scale meteoric industry monopolies we've got going on these days. A lot of top fines written in the eighties or nineties would have been reasonably (to a point) painful to typical companies then, but when the offenders are throwing their weight around at the level of nation-states...
I've been seeing those "we're sorry" commercials from facebook a lot lately and I've been wondering: Are the photos/videos used in them created specifically for the commercial or did they just grab some user content? If it's user created content, did they get full consent from everyone in the photos/videos to use them for a commercial?
Edit: To be clear, I'm expecting to hear that no one has even asked them, or if they were then that they never asked the people in the photos/videos and when asked they went "It's part of the user agreement, so shut up about it".
I've been seeing those "we're sorry" commercials from facebook a lot lately and I've been wondering: Are the photos/videos used in them created specifically for the commercial or did they just grab some user content? If it's user created content, did they get full consent from everyone in the photos/videos to use them for a commercial?
Edit: To be clear, I'm expecting to hear that no one has even asked them, or if they were then that they never asked the people in the photos/videos and when asked they went "It's part of the user agreement, so shut up about it".
I didn't see any news articles discussing this, for good or for ill. So, I watched the commercial, and looked up some names. I was unable to find anyone with an identical name and profile picture as in the commercial. In a couple cases where there was only one real possibility for a Facebook profile, I examined the Facebook profile of a complete stranger (which I'm blaming you for) but was unable to find any matching stuff. While I can't guarantee it, I'm reasonably confident that they didn't just grab user content.
On Wednesday, Facebook invited a handful of journalists to its offices in New York City for an update about its attempts to clean up its platform of misinformation and propaganda. After making attendees watch a glossy, 12-minute video about Facebook’s efforts to fight false news, the company opened the room up for a discussion.
If Facebook had hoped to send journalists out the door feeling that the company is on the right track, the plan was derailed when CNN reporter Oliver Darcy asked John Hegeman, Facebook’s news feed head, a good question: If Facebook is truly serious about fighting false news, why does Infowars still have an account there? The fringe-right, conspiracy-theory news site run by Alex Jones has nearly 1 million followers on Facebook, and has used the platform to disseminate dangerously false information and theories about real news events. In response, Hegeman put it plainly: “The company does not take down false news.”
Hegeman went further, adding that saying something false “doesn’t violate community standards” and that Infowars has “not violated something that would result in them being taken down.” Infowars’ Facebook page currently contains at least 10 videos posted about a purported liberal plan to start a civil war, an overtly false narrative that Jones has been pushing for the past year, which culminated recently with claims that the battle was scheduled for July 4.
“I think part of the fundamental thing here is that we created Facebook to be a place where different people can have a voice. And different publishers have very different points of view,” Hegeman said.
I am sorry, but you cannot be serious about combating fake news and openly give InfoWars a home. The two positions are incompatible.
Q: Why don’t you wanna just say “get off our platform?”
Zuckerberg: Look, as abhorrent as some of this content can be, I do think that it gets down to this principle of giving people a voice.
Let me give you an example of where we would take it down. In Myanmar or Sri Lanka, where there’s a history of sectarian violence, similar to the tradition in the U.S. where you can’t go into a movie theater and yell “Fire!” because that creates an imminent harm.
The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform. There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate.
Q: Okay. “Sandy Hook didn’t happen” is not a debate. It is false. You can’t just take that down?
Zuckerberg: I agree that it is false.
I also think that going to someone who is a victim of Sandy Hook and telling them, “Hey, no, you’re a liar” — that is harassment, and we actually will take that down. But overall, let’s take this whole closer to home...
I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.
I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think-
Q: Why don’t you wanna just say “get off our platform?”
Zuckerberg: Look, as abhorrent as some of this content can be, I do think that it gets down to this principle of giving people a voice.
Let me give you an example of where we would take it down. In Myanmar or Sri Lanka, where there’s a history of sectarian violence, similar to the tradition in the U.S. where you can’t go into a movie theater and yell “Fire!” because that creates an imminent harm.
The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform. There’s a lot of categories of that that we can get into, but then there’s broad debate.
Q: Okay. “Sandy Hook didn’t happen” is not a debate. It is false. You can’t just take that down?
Zuckerberg: I agree that it is false.
I also think that going to someone who is a victim of Sandy Hook and telling them, “Hey, no, you’re a liar” — that is harassment, and we actually will take that down. But overall, let’s take this whole closer to home...
I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.
I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think-
...Holocaust denial doesn't result in real harm?
Welcome to free speech absolutism,where it's more important that bigots speak freely than their victims not be harmed.
The point of free speech is to enable the search for truth. It is truth which enables reasoning. It is reasoning that enables liberty.
When you destroy the foundations of common truth in society, you destroy the foundations of reason, and thus destroy the foundations of liberty.
Seriously, people are spreading blood libels against Jews and other groups, and they're worried about the right to free speech, instead of whether that speech actually makes people more free.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That the point of free speech is to enable the search for truth. It is truth which enables reasoning. It is reasoning that enables liberty.
When you destroy the foundations of common truth in society, you destroy the foundations of reason, and thus destroy the foundations of liberty.
Seriously, people are spreading blood libels against Jews and other groups, and they're worried about the right to free speech, instead of whether that speech actually makes people more free.
That's because a lot of people get taught and believe that free speech is itself the goal rather then the means to an end.
I can't believe Zuckerberg voluntarily brought up Holocaust denial as an example of "I don't agree with it but I don't think there's any harm in letting people talk about it"
I can't believe Zuckerberg voluntarily brought up Holocaust denial as an example of "I don't agree with it but I don't think there's any harm in letting people talk about it"
I can. There's a idea that one way you can demonstrate your belief in free speech is to say that you would allow the most incendiary, hateful, toxic things to be voiced. It doesn't surprise me at all that he went there.
I can't believe Zuckerberg voluntarily brought up Holocaust denial as an example of "I don't agree with it but I don't think there's any harm in letting people talk about it"
I can. There's a idea that one way you can demonstrate your belief in free speech is to say that you would allow the most incendiary, hateful, toxic things to be voiced. It doesn't surprise me at all that he went there.
There’s also a weird American thing where people believe that Klan marches are a symbol of how free America is. The ACLU had a massive donor/staff revolt over this after they helped defend the right of the white supremacists to march on Charlottesville.
There can be no debate with Holocaust deniers. That is a core principle of moderating the AskHistorians subreddit, one of the largest history forums on the internet—and a crucial lesson Mark Zuckerberg seemingly does not understand. Zuckerberg got into hot water on Wednesday when he stated that Facebook wouldn’t necessarily remove Holocaust deniers from its platform because people “get things wrong” and because it’s not always possible to understand the deniers’ intent.
This position fundamentally fails to grasp how Holocaust deniers spread anti-Semitic propaganda, underscoring a flaw in how the purportedly neutral platform thinks it ought to handle particularly odious ideas. Conversation is impossible if one side refuses to acknowledge the basic premise that facts are facts. This is why engaging deniers in such an effort means having already lost. And it is why AskHistorians, where I am one of the volunteer moderators, takes a strict stance on Holocaust denial: We ban it immediately. Deniers need a public forum to spread their lies and to sow doubt among readers not well-informed about history. By convincing people that they might have a point or two, they open the door for further radicalization in pursuit of their ultimate goal: to rehabilitate Nazism as an ideology in public discourse by distancing it from the key elements that make it so rightfully reviled—the genocide against Jews, Roma, Sinti, and others.
More than $109bn (£83bn) has been wiped off Facebook’s market value, including a $14.5bn hit to the fortune of founder Mark Zuckerberg after the company warned investors that user growth had slowed in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data leak scandal.
Facebook’s shares collapsed by 18% on Thursday when the stock market opened in New York, a day after the Silicon Valley company revealed that 3 million users in Europe have abandoned the social network since the Observer revealed the Cambridge Analytica breach of 87m Facebook profiles and the introduction of strict European Union data protection legislation.
More than $109bn (£83bn) has been wiped off Facebook’s market value, including a $14.5bn hit to the fortune of founder Mark Zuckerberg after the company warned investors that user growth had slowed in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data leak scandal.
Facebook’s shares collapsed by 18% on Thursday when the stock market opened in New York, a day after the Silicon Valley company revealed that 3 million users in Europe have abandoned the social network since the Observer revealed the Cambridge Analytica breach of 87m Facebook profiles and the introduction of strict European Union data protection legislation.
Good. Perhaps this will get Zuckerberg to realize that things need to change.
More than $109bn (£83bn) has been wiped off Facebook’s market value, including a $14.5bn hit to the fortune of founder Mark Zuckerberg after the company warned investors that user growth had slowed in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data leak scandal.
Facebook’s shares collapsed by 18% on Thursday when the stock market opened in New York, a day after the Silicon Valley company revealed that 3 million users in Europe have abandoned the social network since the Observer revealed the Cambridge Analytica breach of 87m Facebook profiles and the introduction of strict European Union data protection legislation.
Good. Perhaps this will get Zuckerberg to realize that things need to change.
It's too late. It doesn't match their business model, their culture, or their history.
At this point, I think we need to stop hoping Zuckerberg will get the message and start hoping the board and shareholders find a handle to eject him from control of the company. He is ideologically unsuitable for the task of cleaning up his own product.
At this point, I think we need to stop hoping Zuckerberg will get the message and start hoping the board and shareholders find a handle to eject him from control of the company. He is ideologically unsuitable for the task of cleaning up his own product.
pretty sure his shareholders were fine with whatever until they got caught
At this point, I think we need to stop hoping Zuckerberg will get the message and start hoping the board and shareholders find a handle to eject him from control of the company. He is ideologically unsuitable for the task of cleaning up his own product.
Why would they, when the business model is fundamentally opposed to the things like privacy and truth? It's all about mining that social network graph to sell ads, and keeping people engaged by showing them what they want to see so that they can continue to sell ads.
I feel like this is asking a coal company to stop mining coal. At best you can coerce them into not being complete jackholes about how they do business, but the business they're in is fundamentally terrible for the environment.
At this point, I think we need to stop hoping Zuckerberg will get the message and start hoping the board and shareholders find a handle to eject him from control of the company. He is ideologically unsuitable for the task of cleaning up his own product.
Why would they, when the business model is fundamentally opposed to the things like privacy and truth? It's all about mining that social network graph to sell ads, and keeping people engaged by showing them what they want to see so that they can continue to sell ads.
I feel like this is asking a coal company to stop mining coal. At best you can coerce them into not being complete jackholes about how they do business, but the business they're in is fundamentally terrible for the environment.
Because the major issue right now is that the service is being used as a transmission vector for both extremist politics and foreign propaganda. The Facebook model of constant data harvesting still works if you police those voices. The unwillingness to act on them is a combination of libertarian "free speech" maximalism and a deep faith in the ability to create algorithms that solve the problem without requiring an investment in human labor.
A more traditionally corporate Facebook would be a shittier place for positive political activism and organizing but still overall an improvement on the House of Zuckerberg - a digital mall where grandma can share recipes, cake companies can buy ads targeted at grandma, but troll farms in Russia cannot spam out millions of shitposts per hour because the latter fucks up the brand and suppresses ad revenue.
At this point, I think we need to stop hoping Zuckerberg will get the message and start hoping the board and shareholders find a handle to eject him from control of the company. He is ideologically unsuitable for the task of cleaning up his own product.
Why would they, when the business model is fundamentally opposed to the things like privacy and truth? It's all about mining that social network graph to sell ads, and keeping people engaged by showing them what they want to see so that they can continue to sell ads.
I feel like this is asking a coal company to stop mining coal. At best you can coerce them into not being complete jackholes about how they do business, but the business they're in is fundamentally terrible for the environment.
Because the major issue right now is that the service is being used as a transmission vector for both extremist politics and foreign propaganda. The Facebook model of constant data harvesting still works if you police those voices. The unwillingness to act on them is a combination of libertarian "free speech" maximalism and a deep faith in the ability to create algorithms that solve the problem without requiring an investment in human labor.
A more traditionally corporate Facebook would be a shittier place for positive political activism and organizing but still overall an improvement on the House of Zuckerberg - a digital mall where grandma can share recipes, cake companies can buy ads targeted at grandma, but troll farms in Russia cannot spam out millions of shitposts per hour because the latter fucks up the brand and suppresses ad revenue.
Yeah, its kinda an engineered crisis for them. Facebook makes money, and it spends money. If it had to make its money as you described above (Johnny likes cake, he just looked at his Grandmas cake recipe, ACTIVATE FLOUR COMMERCIALS AND BAKING PAN COMMERCIALS!) then it would have to spend slightly more money on product development and would make slightly less money.
This would still mean money for shareholders, but might mean like 20% less money for them.
Holy absolute fuck nuggets did Facebook get destroyed this morning on the stock market
They lost nearly 20% value in a single day.
This is in response to their earnings report, where they reported revenue 40% higher than one year ago, and then said that next year they expect their revenue to be only 30% higher than that.
Yeah they lost value because people on the stock market thought they'd make more money than they did, it was the most ridiculous calvinball kind of bullshit I ever read
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
...the fuck?
Seriously, do they give this shit out to anyone who asks?
If you have the cash, sure.
The British Government Promised To Help Cambridge Analytica Crack Trump’s Washington
"No No, go ahead. Burn all of those files. We'll wait. It's fine. Oh? Are you done getting rid of evidence? Okay, now we'll allow an order to investigate you."
It's almost like the company doesn't actually believe in privacy.
Or that like everyone else they do a shit job of QA and do releases by schedule rather than when things are actually done and properly vetted. Because absolute shit head's get to tell tech when they are done, and will make their lives 24/7 shit if they give any pushback.
Allowing stuff like that to happen shows that the company doesn’t “believe in privacy” (enough to do it right)
Fair enough i amend my previous statement:
And lying about it.
225 pages, if you are in the mood for a long (but interesting) read.
Guardian reporter:
https://www.ft.com/content/b7c2e7ba-8460-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929
Also bad times for CA's former CEO, and possibly some FEC violations.
(Tangentially, I love that we're starting to see corporate penalties legislated in terms like "percentage of global turnover" rather than a fixed number. If the hurt is a tangible chunk of a company's worth and scales with the company, it's possible that they'll start seeing fines as something to avoid rather than a minor business expense.)
Laws are made to help the rich and powerful
The law is clear that both the rich and poor are equally banned from sleeping under the bridge.
A lot of them predated the kind of huge-scale meteoric industry monopolies we've got going on these days. A lot of top fines written in the eighties or nineties would have been reasonably (to a point) painful to typical companies then, but when the offenders are throwing their weight around at the level of nation-states...
Edit: To be clear, I'm expecting to hear that no one has even asked them, or if they were then that they never asked the people in the photos/videos and when asked they went "It's part of the user agreement, so shut up about it".
I didn't see any news articles discussing this, for good or for ill. So, I watched the commercial, and looked up some names. I was unable to find anyone with an identical name and profile picture as in the commercial. In a couple cases where there was only one real possibility for a Facebook profile, I examined the Facebook profile of a complete stranger (which I'm blaming you for) but was unable to find any matching stuff. While I can't guarantee it, I'm reasonably confident that they didn't just grab user content.
I am sorry, but you cannot be serious about combating fake news and openly give InfoWars a home. The two positions are incompatible.
Welcome to free speech absolutism,where it's more important that bigots speak freely than their victims not be harmed.
When you destroy the foundations of common truth in society, you destroy the foundations of reason, and thus destroy the foundations of liberty.
Seriously, people are spreading blood libels against Jews and other groups, and they're worried about the right to free speech, instead of whether that speech actually makes people more free.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That's because a lot of people get taught and believe that free speech is itself the goal rather then the means to an end.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I can. There's a idea that one way you can demonstrate your belief in free speech is to say that you would allow the most incendiary, hateful, toxic things to be voiced. It doesn't surprise me at all that he went there.
There’s also a weird American thing where people believe that Klan marches are a symbol of how free America is. The ACLU had a massive donor/staff revolt over this after they helped defend the right of the white supremacists to march on Charlottesville.
Good. Perhaps this will get Zuckerberg to realize that things need to change.
It's too late. It doesn't match their business model, their culture, or their history.
pretty sure his shareholders were fine with whatever until they got caught
Why would they, when the business model is fundamentally opposed to the things like privacy and truth? It's all about mining that social network graph to sell ads, and keeping people engaged by showing them what they want to see so that they can continue to sell ads.
I feel like this is asking a coal company to stop mining coal. At best you can coerce them into not being complete jackholes about how they do business, but the business they're in is fundamentally terrible for the environment.
Because the major issue right now is that the service is being used as a transmission vector for both extremist politics and foreign propaganda. The Facebook model of constant data harvesting still works if you police those voices. The unwillingness to act on them is a combination of libertarian "free speech" maximalism and a deep faith in the ability to create algorithms that solve the problem without requiring an investment in human labor.
A more traditionally corporate Facebook would be a shittier place for positive political activism and organizing but still overall an improvement on the House of Zuckerberg - a digital mall where grandma can share recipes, cake companies can buy ads targeted at grandma, but troll farms in Russia cannot spam out millions of shitposts per hour because the latter fucks up the brand and suppresses ad revenue.
Yeah, its kinda an engineered crisis for them. Facebook makes money, and it spends money. If it had to make its money as you described above (Johnny likes cake, he just looked at his Grandmas cake recipe, ACTIVATE FLOUR COMMERCIALS AND BAKING PAN COMMERCIALS!) then it would have to spend slightly more money on product development and would make slightly less money.
This would still mean money for shareholders, but might mean like 20% less money for them.
They lost nearly 20% value in a single day.
This is in response to their earnings report, where they reported revenue 40% higher than one year ago, and then said that next year they expect their revenue to be only 30% higher than that.
Let's not pretend the company is imploding.
pleasepaypreacher.net