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
Stocks are future value so if they don't make as much money as they thought then the value should go down.
This almost certainly was an over-correction though
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Isn't part of it also the revelation that their Europe stuff is crashing?
Ad metrics show that left-wingers use ad-blockers. Social media platforms have a vested interest in promoting right-wing speech.
The right wing also seems more predisposed to buying targeted schwag and falling for scams, so there's more money to be made from them. Newspapers used to avoid catering to the lower end of advertisers for fear of tarnishing their product, while social media companies are willing to run shit that the John Birch Society newsletter would have turned down for ethical reasons.
One might argue that all corporations have a vested interest in promoting the right as the right are pro-corporation typically, and social media corps are no different. It's why they play up the "social liberalism" but actual economic leftism? Anathema to these entities.
One might argue that all corporations have a vested interest in promoting the right as the right are pro-corporation typically, and social media corps are no different. It's why they play up the "social liberalism" but actual economic leftism? Anathema to these entities.
Exactly. Compounding this is that these companies operate in a space that is largely unregulated and they have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It only makes sense to work with politicians who are ideologically opposed to regulation.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
+7
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
In his new book, '21 Lessons for the 21st Century', the best-selling author turns his attention to the problems we face today. Here, he argues that ‘fake news’ is much older than Facebook...
Facebook is looking to gobble up users’ financial information, including such tidbits as “card transactions and checking-account balances,” as part of its relentless effort to swallow up yet more of the web, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
According to the Journal’s report, sources say the social media giant—which, for the record, has been enjoying months of controversy over its reckless handling of user data—has reached out to major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup Inc., and U.S. Bancorp to pitch “potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger.” In exchange for potential features including fraud alerts and checking-account balance checks, Facebook is asking for some of its users’ most sensitive financial information, such as their balances and where they use debit and credit cards. (Just think of the last venue you visited that you might not want a massive social media company to know about.)
Who keeps coming up with these bad ideas? And why do they still have a job?
Facebook is looking to gobble up users’ financial information, including such tidbits as “card transactions and checking-account balances,” as part of its relentless effort to swallow up yet more of the web, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
According to the Journal’s report, sources say the social media giant—which, for the record, has been enjoying months of controversy over its reckless handling of user data—has reached out to major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup Inc., and U.S. Bancorp to pitch “potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger.” In exchange for potential features including fraud alerts and checking-account balance checks, Facebook is asking for some of its users’ most sensitive financial information, such as their balances and where they use debit and credit cards. (Just think of the last venue you visited that you might not want a massive social media company to know about.)
Who keeps coming up with these bad ideas? And why do they still have a job?
Not sure on who, but why is that it keeps making them money.
When asked if this, as well as the numerous other incidences of black or leftist posters, groups, or events being banned or labeled as fake news or impostors could have been engineered through the usual fascist tactic of mass-reportage, Facebook denied a trend and admitted to hundreds of isolated incidents.
During a closed-door and off-the-record meeting last week, top Facebook executive Campbell Brown reportedly warned news publishers that refusal to cooperate with the tech behemoth's efforts to "revitalize journalism" will leave media outlets dying "like in a hospice."
Reported first by The Australian under a headline which read "Work With Facebook or Die: Zuckerberg," the social media giant has insisted the comments were taken out of context, even as five individuals who attended the four-hour meeting corroborated what Brown had stated.
"Mark doesn't care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes," Brown reportedly said, referring to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. "We will help you revitalize journalism... in a few years the reverse looks like I'll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice."
As The Guardian reported on Monday, Facebook is "vehemently" denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. However, Facebook is refusing to release its transcript and tape of the gathering.
Wow what an asshole.
+7
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Facebook is "vehemently" denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. However, Facebook is refusing to release its transcript and tape of the gathering.
"What, I never said that! Look, I kept my own notes, it says it right here!"
"Oh that's helpful, may we see them?"
"........"
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
What just baffles me about this is that, it should be as trivial a thing as anything on so leviathan a web service as FB is to remove those fields from the ad posting options, if the add is classified as a job/housing /finance etc.At least for the obvious stuff. Yeah blocking the use of "Likes Telemundo" as not allowed is maybe a bit more thought, but "is Jewish".
Like a have the summer intern do it levels of work.
Isn't allowing ads to target a gender or race basically discrimination? Is that not illegal?
Facebook will probably make a Section 230 claim, arguing that the problem is the end user choosing illegal options. And given that the tech industry is smarting after the passage of SESTA, I wouldn't be surprised if they get the EFF on board with doing so.
Based on his previous behavior though, I think this is a sort of money laundering scheme to try to escape a fiasco with some of the wealth intact. I base this on the fact that the last time Zuckerberg made noise about getting all philantrophic supposedly, it was immediately after he got the internal information about Cambridge Analytica and other such Facebook fuckeries that he thought might sink him (he found out in 2015, long before it got to the press), and then he moved $3 billion out to supposedly do something charitable, but rich people charity is this big black hole where money disappears, usually not to actually do anything charitable but to hide somewhere else. Make some noise about spending money, get some nice buzz, then everyone forgets that the money vanished and never did what it was supposed to do.
And since this is a much larger chunk of change than last time, whatever bad news is coming down the pipeline is going to be even worse. Far worse than what we already know it is.
Also in slightly less conspiracy theory sounding stuff, John Oliver did an expose on Facebook.
Oh, so that's why I've been getting all those cold calls recently
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+7
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
The Facebook hack is even worse than was at first clear, the company has admitted.
The site had already admitted that a hole in its code would allow people to gain access to any account, in a problem that affected some 50 million users.
But it later said that the problem would also affect its "Facebook Login" service, which allows other apps to use people's Facebook account to login.
That means that once a hacker had access to a person's Facebook account, they could make their way through the rest of their digital life. That might include other Facebook apps like Instagram but also third-party ones that use the login service, such as Tinder.
"The vulnerability was on Facebook, but these access tokens enabled someone to use the account as if they were the account-holder themselves," said Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of product management, who disclosed the vulnerability in a blog post on Friday.
+5
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
The Facebook hack is even worse than was at first clear, the company has admitted.
The site had already admitted that a hole in its code would allow people to gain access to any account, in a problem that affected some 50 million users.
But it later said that the problem would also affect its "Facebook Login" service, which allows other apps to use people's Facebook account to login.
That means that once a hacker had access to a person's Facebook account, they could make their way through the rest of their digital life. That might include other Facebook apps like Instagram but also third-party ones that use the login service, such as Tinder.
"The vulnerability was on Facebook, but these access tokens enabled someone to use the account as if they were the account-holder themselves," said Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of product management, who disclosed the vulnerability in a blog post on Friday.
They are painfully predictable like that. I've been seeing support for breaking up Facebook and I fully agree. Doing so would set a nice precedent for the rest of the tech companies too.
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
The Facebook hack is even worse than was at first clear, the company has admitted.
The site had already admitted that a hole in its code would allow people to gain access to any account, in a problem that affected some 50 million users.
But it later said that the problem would also affect its "Facebook Login" service, which allows other apps to use people's Facebook account to login.
That means that once a hacker had access to a person's Facebook account, they could make their way through the rest of their digital life. That might include other Facebook apps like Instagram but also third-party ones that use the login service, such as Tinder.
"The vulnerability was on Facebook, but these access tokens enabled someone to use the account as if they were the account-holder themselves," said Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of product management, who disclosed the vulnerability in a blog post on Friday.
They are painfully predictable like that. I've been seeing support for breaking up Facebook and I fully agree. Doing so would set a nice precedent for the rest of the tech companies too.
I'd rather see efforts to decouple friends lists and the like from the services. If Facebook was more like email - where the contacts simply transferred to whichever program or service I like best - it would be a lot easier to make genuine choices about which social media companies I prefer to use.
+2
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
The Facebook hack is even worse than was at first clear, the company has admitted.
The site had already admitted that a hole in its code would allow people to gain access to any account, in a problem that affected some 50 million users.
But it later said that the problem would also affect its "Facebook Login" service, which allows other apps to use people's Facebook account to login.
That means that once a hacker had access to a person's Facebook account, they could make their way through the rest of their digital life. That might include other Facebook apps like Instagram but also third-party ones that use the login service, such as Tinder.
"The vulnerability was on Facebook, but these access tokens enabled someone to use the account as if they were the account-holder themselves," said Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of product management, who disclosed the vulnerability in a blog post on Friday.
They are painfully predictable like that. I've been seeing support for breaking up Facebook and I fully agree. Doing so would set a nice precedent for the rest of the tech companies too.
I'd rather see efforts to decouple friends lists and the like from the services. If Facebook was more like email - where the contacts simply transferred to whichever program or service I like best - it would be a lot easier to make genuine choices about which social media companies I prefer to use.
Solid was created by the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Its mission is to reshape the web as we know it. Solid will foster a new breed of applications with capabilities above and beyond anything that exists today.
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
The Facebook hack is even worse than was at first clear, the company has admitted.
The site had already admitted that a hole in its code would allow people to gain access to any account, in a problem that affected some 50 million users.
But it later said that the problem would also affect its "Facebook Login" service, which allows other apps to use people's Facebook account to login.
That means that once a hacker had access to a person's Facebook account, they could make their way through the rest of their digital life. That might include other Facebook apps like Instagram but also third-party ones that use the login service, such as Tinder.
"The vulnerability was on Facebook, but these access tokens enabled someone to use the account as if they were the account-holder themselves," said Guy Rosen, Facebook's vice president of product management, who disclosed the vulnerability in a blog post on Friday.
They are painfully predictable like that. I've been seeing support for breaking up Facebook and I fully agree. Doing so would set a nice precedent for the rest of the tech companies too.
How would “breaking up Facebook” even work? I can’t friend anyone outside my city or something like that?
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
How would “breaking up Facebook” even work? I can’t friend anyone outside my city or something like that?
Splitting off a lot of the companies Facebook has acquired over the years, like Instagram, Oculus, and WhatsApp. Basically everything that could survive on their own.
How would “breaking up Facebook” even work? I can’t friend anyone outside my city or something like that?
Splitting off a lot of the companies Facebook has acquired over the years, like Instagram, Oculus, and WhatsApp. Basically everything that could survive on their own.
None of that is core to the complaints though, which is all about the central facebook stuff, not what they've bought
How would “breaking up Facebook” even work? I can’t friend anyone outside my city or something like that?
Splitting off a lot of the companies Facebook has acquired over the years, like Instagram, Oculus, and WhatsApp. Basically everything that could survive on their own.
None of that is core to the complaints though, which is all about the central facebook stuff, not what they've bought
No, but an easy way to keep them from becoming an unstoppable juggernaut is to prevent them from snowballing like that. Also with Instagram freed of Facebook's clutches it could draw away younger members and force Facebook either to stop sucking or go the way of Myspace.
Breaking up facebook effectively would probably be more along the lines of separating the advert serving business, the microtargetting side, etc.
Josh Marshall at TPM had a good post on their editorial blog about FB's operations and where their monopolistic power comes from a while back, I can't remember it all now.
98% of their revenue is serving ads so you're effectively just re-directing the revenue stream. The ads serving business still wants to serve ads. The user-facing business has no business model except by showing ads it gets from its ads serving business for which the ads serving business would collect the money it already does and pass it on to the user-facing side to pay the bills, except I suppose now it has to extract a portion for the FB.ADS stockholders
The facebook ad serving AFAIK hasn't built a model where it serves ads outside of facebook proper so while that might be possible eventually it would find itself with one client, and likewise the user-facing side would find itself with one service it would prefer as it would take zero work to switch
I think Facebook’s dominance is more fragile than you might think. It’s already starting to get the reputation of “the place where you go to post baby pics and wish Grandma a happy birthday.” It’s not hip. It could easily fade out of relevance when something better is created. It’s not like a phone company that has a physical monopoly over the wires.
Instead of talking about breaking up Facebook we need to be talking about curbing Facebook’s abuse of data, like “shadow profiles” and too-specific ad targeting (resulting in racist ad targeting or political ads laser-targeted to rile up certain groups.)
And if tech companies had to pay $20 to every user whose password got hacked, they’d improve security quite quickly, I think.
Facebook owns the stuff that is hip though, and its strategy of keeping a low profile (unlike twitter) reduces PR overhead. Microsoft also has a poor consumer reputation but doesn't have to try very hard to be the most widely adopted only game in town.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
The association with Tim Burners Lee seems like an appeal to authority.
I don't expect him to have any better understanding of how to fix things than anyone else. Program it, sure, but not to understand how to fix it.
Also I'm skeptical of open source alternatives. They tend to be more susceptible to hacking, not because their coding is worse, but because the nature of being open source means your code is freely open for everyone to scrutinize. But also because open source code tends to be utilized widely by other companies with little to no investment in improving the code, leading to the code base being exceptionally lucrative for hackers to break while also being the weakest link in the code base.
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Breaking up Facebook is a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have already gotten out.
If anything, it would make the situation worse because it would inevitably cause duplication and fragmentation of the data that Facebook already has a difficult time managing properly in the first place.
The real issue is that this shit should've been regulated from the start, and Facebook needs to knock it the fuck off and stop selling people's information, full stop.
Posts
But god damn it was the largest drop by a single company in a single day in wall street history
Stocks are future value so if they don't make as much money as they thought then the value should go down.
This almost certainly was an over-correction though
I bought three shares on the bounce.
Buying time. At least in the short term.
Good. They're incredibly over-valued, as a stock. May this profit loss shock them out of their stupidity.
The right wing also seems more predisposed to buying targeted schwag and falling for scams, so there's more money to be made from them. Newspapers used to avoid catering to the lower end of advertisers for fear of tarnishing their product, while social media companies are willing to run shit that the John Birch Society newsletter would have turned down for ethical reasons.
Exactly. Compounding this is that these companies operate in a space that is largely unregulated and they have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It only makes sense to work with politicians who are ideologically opposed to regulation.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Who keeps coming up with these bad ideas? And why do they still have a job?
Not sure on who, but why is that it keeps making them money.
DCist is a newspaper.
When asked if this, as well as the numerous other incidences of black or leftist posters, groups, or events being banned or labeled as fake news or impostors could have been engineered through the usual fascist tactic of mass-reportage, Facebook denied a trend and admitted to hundreds of isolated incidents.
Wow what an asshole.
"What, I never said that! Look, I kept my own notes, it says it right here!"
"Oh that's helpful, may we see them?"
"........"
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Edit:
I literally called this shit half a year ago.
Based on his previous behavior though, I think this is a sort of money laundering scheme to try to escape a fiasco with some of the wealth intact. I base this on the fact that the last time Zuckerberg made noise about getting all philantrophic supposedly, it was immediately after he got the internal information about Cambridge Analytica and other such Facebook fuckeries that he thought might sink him (he found out in 2015, long before it got to the press), and then he moved $3 billion out to supposedly do something charitable, but rich people charity is this big black hole where money disappears, usually not to actually do anything charitable but to hide somewhere else. Make some noise about spending money, get some nice buzz, then everyone forgets that the money vanished and never did what it was supposed to do.
And since this is a much larger chunk of change than last time, whatever bad news is coming down the pipeline is going to be even worse. Far worse than what we already know it is.
Also in slightly less conspiracy theory sounding stuff, John Oliver did an expose on Facebook.
Fucking hell this is some infuriating shit.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Of course, this being Facebook, it will turn out that the breach was much, much larger than what was originally announced. Also, how is Zuckerberg not being investigated for insider trading? He's clearly trying to sell off stock whenever he gets an internal memo that something bad is about to go down.
Facebook hack gets worse as company admits Instagram and other apps were exposed too.
They are painfully predictable like that. I've been seeing support for breaking up Facebook and I fully agree. Doing so would set a nice precedent for the rest of the tech companies too.
I'd rather see efforts to decouple friends lists and the like from the services. If Facebook was more like email - where the contacts simply transferred to whichever program or service I like best - it would be a lot easier to make genuine choices about which social media companies I prefer to use.
Yes, the well known Google Johnson, definitely a real name
There's a federated identity issue as we also have
Luiz Edgar, https://google.inrupt.net/
Sadly my first name is already taken but I grabbed a bunch of misc IDs just in case. It is a cute idea though
How would “breaking up Facebook” even work? I can’t friend anyone outside my city or something like that?
Splitting off a lot of the companies Facebook has acquired over the years, like Instagram, Oculus, and WhatsApp. Basically everything that could survive on their own.
None of that is core to the complaints though, which is all about the central facebook stuff, not what they've bought
No, but an easy way to keep them from becoming an unstoppable juggernaut is to prevent them from snowballing like that. Also with Instagram freed of Facebook's clutches it could draw away younger members and force Facebook either to stop sucking or go the way of Myspace.
Josh Marshall at TPM had a good post on their editorial blog about FB's operations and where their monopolistic power comes from a while back, I can't remember it all now.
98% of their revenue is serving ads so you're effectively just re-directing the revenue stream. The ads serving business still wants to serve ads. The user-facing business has no business model except by showing ads it gets from its ads serving business for which the ads serving business would collect the money it already does and pass it on to the user-facing side to pay the bills, except I suppose now it has to extract a portion for the FB.ADS stockholders
The facebook ad serving AFAIK hasn't built a model where it serves ads outside of facebook proper so while that might be possible eventually it would find itself with one client, and likewise the user-facing side would find itself with one service it would prefer as it would take zero work to switch
Instead of talking about breaking up Facebook we need to be talking about curbing Facebook’s abuse of data, like “shadow profiles” and too-specific ad targeting (resulting in racist ad targeting or political ads laser-targeted to rile up certain groups.)
And if tech companies had to pay $20 to every user whose password got hacked, they’d improve security quite quickly, I think.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
TBH If the *inventor* of the web can't fix social media, then I have no frickin' clue who might (or could) lead such an effort.
Edit: Breaking up Facebook, whilst a good idea, feels like just delaying the inevitable. It's like a hydra.
I don't expect him to have any better understanding of how to fix things than anyone else. Program it, sure, but not to understand how to fix it.
Also I'm skeptical of open source alternatives. They tend to be more susceptible to hacking, not because their coding is worse, but because the nature of being open source means your code is freely open for everyone to scrutinize. But also because open source code tends to be utilized widely by other companies with little to no investment in improving the code, leading to the code base being exceptionally lucrative for hackers to break while also being the weakest link in the code base.
If anything, it would make the situation worse because it would inevitably cause duplication and fragmentation of the data that Facebook already has a difficult time managing properly in the first place.
The real issue is that this shit should've been regulated from the start, and Facebook needs to knock it the fuck off and stop selling people's information, full stop.