"We've made a bunch of mistakes" on privacy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted. It turns out Facebook is just as bad as Google when it comes to data-handling. And the result is to sit next to Mountain View on the Federal Trade Commission's naughty step by agreeing to a bi-annual privacy review for the next 20 years. In …
What a crock...
This is a wimpy wrist-slap from the FTC. Pray tell, why does Facebook get 30 days to remove information that is the property of former users? I suspect that there has already been a FB corporate department created (since the ruling) charged specifically with aggressively and maximally monetizing the information of departed users during that 30-day "grace" (graceless?) period. The deadline should have been no longer than 48 hours, and that makes generous allowance for server-to-server replication issues. I don't primarily blame the FTC. I don't _really_ blame Facebook or Fark Fuckerburg. I blame the "dumb fucks" (he really was dead-on accurate with that analysis) who use a service that operates under the sole business model of selling users' personal information to parties to whom the user would not voluntarily divulge that information, and expect anything other than the violation and abuse that has been (and will continue to be) forthcoming from that service. Of course, many "free" services from Google and other providers share that business model, but unlike Facebook, most of those services must operate in a more-or-less open ecosystem, which provides opportunities for those of above-room-termperature IQs and modest technical means to circumvent the harvesting of PPI.
It's more like they're giving you 30 days to decide you can't live without it. I reckon a lot change their minds in that time.
I'm not disputing your suggestion that they "aggressively and maximally monetize" users' data in that time, though.
Anybody else get the feeling that if this had been Microsoft or Google hosting a similar 'sheeple/cult' style site and had lied about the mentioned security/privacy, there would have been a public outcry and said site would have been shutdown?
Gotta love the sheep and their fears about not being able to tell everyone what they are doing every second of everyday. I bet if Facebook asked for Bank details, the dumb****s would post it. Facebook and Twatter are a bane on life and WEB 2.0 need to f*** off.
Like most things FB and Twitter are great ideas, on paper. However when you get scumbags like Zuckerberg, who were brainwashed by the education system to spend their entire lives putting dollar values on everything, that these ideas quickly become quagmires of utter crapulance!
Microsoft are an investor in FB.
Go Disposable Villain of Hypocrisy
Nice words Mark - unfortunately by your actions you have been judged and found wanting. A situation I suspect will continue until Facebook goes the way of all Flesh.....
"A situation I suspect will continue until Facebook goes the way of all Flesh....."
Why did I read this as "the way of all Flash" :)
"mistakes" double entendre
"We've made a bunch of mistakes" i.e. we got caught.
Who's kidding themselves that any other part of it was accidental?
If you believe that Facebook has changed
Can I interest you in some Enron shares?
Monetisation of user data is the way Facebook makes profits - restrictions on the use of this data would restrict their income, hence they will skirt laws as far as they can, and then, as with other companies, if they get found out, all that happens is that their bean counters do is re-calculate the net profit that they made, after the trifling fines are deducted (looking to a profit of 1 billion this year - fines are how much?)
The main problem is not that the fines are too small - which is true - but that the vast user base (present commentator included) don't throw their toys out of the pram, but continue, in increasing numbers, to use the service, regardless of what we hear about privacy violations.
Einstein allegedly made the trite aphorism "only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the first one" - and one of the annoying thing about trite aphorisms is that they are generally accurate.
Bah , if you want privacy ...
.. don't post your details online. Simple as that. All other things aside the server and DB admins working for the company you've given your details to can and will browse user data when they're bored.
What you really mean is: If you want privacy, don't let anyone post your details online...
Problem is, someone already has, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
They're still dumb fucks, he just doesn't say it in public any more.
"Mistakes", my ass.
The fuckheads know, and knew, exactly what they are, and were, doing.
Now ask me why I have nothing to do with the !GooMyFaceYouMSTwits ...
they haven't taken it too seriously
I just checked my settings.
Instant personalisation shows a checkbox and tells me that I can un-check it to disable.
However it also states that instant personalisation isn't ready for me yet - so the box remains checked and I can't un-check it.
"we're going to enable this soon - bitch!"
Anyone else get the irresistible argue to punch your screen when you saw the piccy of mark. That has to be the goofiest look from him I’ve seen yet or am I just being overly sensitive to my need to bitch slap him
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity