Re: Quality of the data
"That's why I use Facebook."
Well, I have to give you credit for at least being honest about why you don't mind furthering the interests of a horrible, corrosive company like Facebook. As long as you get yours, I guess.
Yet another rogue Facebook app that gathered and sold "intimate" details on millions of users has come to light. A report from New Scientist finds that the myPersonality app had collected and shared the personal information for as many as three million users who had installed the app on their Facebook profile. The data has …
Have you forgotten that the whole CA scandal blew up because it was the whole "yes, please slurp my friends' data as well and, no, don't bother getting their permission, it's okay, they won't mind" that upset people, not the idea of people voluntarily giving up their own data?
It is oddly difficult to not use social media. I deleted my facething just before the Cambridge Analytica thing hit the mainstream. But, here at work, they are saying that social media is an excellent way of staying in touch with the users and we should be expanding it's use. Are they going to hoover up all the intellectual property of said university? Am I going to have to reactivate my facething just so I can tell a user that I have patched their server, or rather that puppet has.
Does that make me a sheeple?
Also, no one seems to be getting exercised about what Google is doing with all the data that people hand over to them.
I know that I don't have the answers I just hope that cleverer people than me come up with some.
A lot of people think I'm strange because I don't use LinkedIn. I remind them that they jizzed out millions of user details because they didn't think to sanitise their user inputs.
They don't care.
If they don't care about sheer incompetent oafs, why would they care about competent baddies?
The terms of service state something along the lines of “All your postings are belong to us“.
That and the lack of a downvote/dislike/disagree option always put me off. The suppression of dissent at Facebook’s core, which makes it unsuitable for any real interaction. This totalitarian “you may only agree”, the hijacking of any and all posts and pages for commercial purposes, manipulating the feed so I actually DON’T get to see what my firends are up to, but instead get another ad for some exploitative corporation trying to sell me a climate killer machine, whole swathes of the population being used as guineapigs for mad scientist style social experiments, and the fact the whole damn site looks like something out of a horror movie featuring Windows Vista have made it unsuitable for human consumption. But hey, drivethroughs are also popular.
Anonymous because these days we even need to hide our secondary made-up online identities from the Borg.
I don't think Facebook's policies have anything to do with anything.
The fact that Facebook gives developers a whole raft of tools that allow them to do these things is more pertinent.
Them washing their hands and saying the developer is at fault is hypocritical and probably meaningless if they were ever taken to court.
If you give someone the keys to the castle you can't say its not your fault when the drawbridge comes down because you told them not to open it.
Ignoring all the bollocks coming out of Facebook towers about policies etc
Facebook have not become a multi billion $ organisation flogging adverts for toothpaste and whatever crap gets pushed to the screen.
They have made their money by selling data and access to the tools that allows data harvesting.
Their tick box defence of "its against our policies" is as useful as the "are you over 18, click yes to see tits click no to not see tits"
Its not a defence any more than a 14 year old is going to click "no" companies using data harvested from Facebook will have brought the tools with the tacit acknowledgement that they were going to harvest data and make financial gain from that.
but I thought... I thought I heard...I thought I read... some strongly-worded statements from Cambridge University to the tune of "Cambridge Analytica - nothing to do with us, guv!"
Would they be so uninformed?! Or is it, perhaps, fake news?! No other option comes to my mind....
The change in the T&Cs for WhatsApp is another, typical Facebook cop out. Essentially it is used by loads of people, including minors (not the underground type) to communicate. Recently a pop-up appeared where you just ticked a box to say you were over 16. How in hells name are kids just going to stop using it. They will just tick the box as the shites at Facebook say, well you agreed and then continue to sell the data. I have zero confidence in Facebook to be doing what they claim and keeping the two separate. They should never have been allowed to buy WhatsApp in the first place. If you read the T&Cs then there is every chance that data is being used for profile matching with Facebook accounts.
They are simply the worst bunch of money-grubbing lying scroats there is, along with most of the similar Silicon Valley app-based outfits.
The revelation comes as Facebook is trying to rehab its image in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Facebook doesn't need to go to rehab it needs a defibrillator.
"To date thousands of apps have been investigated and around 200 have been suspended — pending a thorough investigation into whether they did in fact misuse any data."
You gave them to tools to do it and they did it gladly
"The report notes that the app, developed by Cambridge University researchers, had advertised its data sharing as being anonymous"
Any time an organization is collecting data online about you and is claiming that it is anonymous or "anonymized", they're either mistaken or lying.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019