back to article Billion-dollar investor tells Facebook: Just Zuck off, already!

One of Facebook's major investors is calling on the social network to drop CEO Mark Zuckerberg from its board as part of a management shakeup. Scott Stringer, New York City Comptroller and the person in charge of investing the city's $195bn pension fund, called on Facebook to add three new independent members to its board of …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

    I noticed Facebook repeatedly 'Undelete' timeline posts from at long as 10 years ago. None of this appears in the *Download-your-Data* option. I asked Irish-DPC to investigate: 'How are you confirming Facebook actually deletes data'? Their response: 'You will need to contact Facebook directly'. Has anyone ever managed it? I got bored and opted for #DeleteFacebook

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

      They may "turn off" your account but nothing gets deleted from what El Reg and other sites have posted. If you ever had an account, they can still track and follow you and give your info to advertisers. Think of free Facebook as a gift that just keeps on giving... for a fee of course.

      1. Mark 65 Silver badge

        Re: Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

        If you ever had an account, they can still track and follow you

        No more or less so than if you don't have an account, and not as much as if your browser is permanently logged in to Facebook.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

          Hosts is your friend.

          0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com

          0.0.0.0 www.facebook.net

          etc.

          Try https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporations/facebook/all for a full list.

          1. luminous

            Optional

            Just found out.. late I know.. .that Chrome (and therefore Vivaldi) ignores your hosts file and uses Google DNS by default. So very Google.....

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              'Chrome (and therefore Vivaldi) ignores your hosts file'

              Ouch! I still use an ancient version of Chrome for one work site. Facebook / Twitter are blocked using Hosts. So I guess this is a 'newer feature' of Chrome... That's a motherfucker. Its not like Firefox has been excelling recently and can take up the slack....

            2. JWLong

              Re: Optional

              BullShit:

              Using a chrome browser go to google.com and type in "I want to buy a chrome book". If you have www.googleadservices.com blocked in your host file you get this notification.

              This site can’t be reached

              www.googleadservices.com’s server IP address could not be found.

              Now, if chrome was bypassing the host file wouldn't the relevant ads for (the ones with the little AD word next to them) be available since google AdWords and ChromeBook are where google makes a crap load of it's money. Chrome doesn't bypass the host file.

              Now, if you want a host file with an easy to do install go here:

              http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.zip

              (it's a download called host.zip), unzip, right click the mvps.bat and run as admin. It builds the host file and doesn't need a system restart to be active.

              Stop spreading FUD please! The only thing bypassing the host is some of MicroSofts hard coded telemetry API's and they can be defeated by properly setting up your modem/switch/firewall/router, what ever is needed. Or, you can use this to anally lubricate MicroSofts poop hole slop:

              https://download.spybot.info/AntiBeacon/SpybotAntiBeacon-1.6-setup.exe

              This kills the M$ slurp totally! A word of caution about AntiBeacon, if you have enterprise KMS licensing for M$ software, antibeacon will interfere with with key renewal. In this case you need to release all antibeacon blocking and re-initialize the KMS schema again.

            3. gypsythief

              Re: that Chrome (and therefore Vivaldi)

              This is incorrect, Vivaldi *does* respect your hosts file. I have just tested by adding "0.0.0.0 facebook.com" and bingo, I can no longer access Facebook from Vivaldi. Remove the line, and I can access it again.

              Remember that Vivaldi is based on Chromium so doesn't pick up a lot of Googleisms in the Chromium -> Chrome conversion, like using Google's DNS servers.

    2. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

      There is the problem of data synchronisation here. If you deleted posts, and they then reappear within hours, it's entirely possible that whatever the algorithm is that tries to resolve any conflicts between different slices/shards of databases opts to go for 'retain the data' instead. With the Social Book Post Manager extension for Chrome, I've deleted quite a few years of my Facebook statuses, comments etc from there, and have also gone back a few days later to verify everything's been removed properly. It's worth doing if you prefer to not lose your friends list but don't like leaving tracks.

      There *is* metadata though that you cannot delete (much to my annoyance), other than through deleting your account properly, and then recreating one.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Its Not Just Videos That Aren't DELETED

      I'm not being funny, but asking for something to be deleted once you've published something on the Internet is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Time for Zuk to join Kalanick

    Channel4 reported that some of the 50m data is still freely in circulation.

    So much for deletion! Zuk just doesn't get it.... Is he a Neocon obsessed with disruption, or naive about the world? Either way, he's sure ruthlessly efficient at marrying User-Slurp with Broker-Data to produce Individual-Tailored-Pricing. Look forward to that coming to a Newsfeed near you...

    Got to laugh when Zuk keeps defending himself by saying FB is free, therefore Ad Slurp... How convenient a lie, considering his user posse produce most of the content! So free, hardly when you have user slaves!

    But I still can't get my wider family to see that -WhatsApp = Facebook-. So Zuk will probably bank another billion or so users before getting lynched!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Speaking of WhatsApp and Facebook

      On an Android Phone that never had Facebook Messenger App installed (not even a Facebook user): WhatsApp is now creating a sneaky little folder that there's little or no info on the net about:

      .facebook_cache

      WTF???

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Spudley

      Re: Time for Zuk to join Kalanick

      Zuk just doesn't get it.... Is he a Neocon obsessed with disruption, or naive about the world?

      I'd go with totally naive.

      People seem to forget that Facebook started out as a college kid's quick and dirty little web app to connect his friends and just spiralled out of control from there. Zuckerberg has no genius quality or leadership skills; by all accounts, he's not even that good a programmer. He just got lucky. Billions of dollars lucky, but that's all it is. Luck.

      He's had a little over a decade to get used to it, so you'd think he might have learned a few things by now. But on the flip side of that, Facebook is the only thing he's ever done; he's got zero experience of the real world, and I'd bet that even now he has little understanding of how other people use this thing he's created.

      He's the guy sitting in the cockpit of the rocket ship, frantically pushing buttons and thinking he's in control.

  3. Sampler

    "I find that argument, that if you’re not paying that somehow we can’t care about you, to be extremely glib and not at all aligned with the truth."

    Just like a farmer cares for his cattle...

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      But of course the farmer cares . . right up to the slaughterhouse, that is.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice bit of camouflage ..

    .. for the fact that Stringer decided to invest capital in Facebook and now had his financial rear end handed to him when reality hit.

    Stringer, who estimates his city's fund has sunk about $1bn into purchasing Facebook shares, called on the board to make changes in the wake of revelations on the company's cooperation with Cambridge Analytica in the run-up to the 2016 elections.

    If I had money in that fund I'd sue the crap out of him and have him removed for investing in vapour without proper due diligence. It's not exactly a secret that FB forever teethers on a knife edge between making money off people mining and simply breaking the law.

  5. Zippy's Sausage Factory

    It would be interesting if Zuckerberg did get fired from Facebook. No doubt he would cry and whinge about it, more or less forever, but his gaffes as CEO (rampant ageism, calling users 'dumb f--ks', etc etc) are bound to come back and bite him sooner or later. These things always do.

    1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

      Loopy Zuck

      "It would be interesting if Zuckerberg did get fired from Facebook"

      Because that would involve firing himself?

      One of the major points about FB is that Zuck is/was very good at ensuring control, often through dubious (but legal) means. Check out the share dilution tricks he pulled in the early days to effectively cut out the other shareholders.

      Zuck will give up FB when he damn well feels like it. The only people that can kick him out are the US government through anti-trust laws, or if he lost his right to be a director. He'd still hold the majority of the controlling shares tho, even if he's not the CEO.

      He owns FB. If the US wants to nationalize it, maybe that will change. Other than that, it'll always be his beast.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When you're in the rapids on Shit Creek in a barbed wire canoe...

    It may be time to rethink your strategy.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tim Cook's claim that Apple don't monetise customers through data is completely specious - I'm surprised it isn't more widely challenged.

    Random example: here is a link to Apple's "advertising guide for news publishers" and associated "Workbench" tool

    https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/General/Conceptual/News_Advertising/WorkbenchHelpBasics.html

    1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      "Apple don't monetise customers"

      It is the degree that is import. If you have a commercial relationship with a business, it is in the best interest of the business to track your purchases, etc. so they can find products or services you might be interested in to sell you. And as a customer, the freebies and recommendations are nice. But where this should stop is at the business door. And it does not matter if the business is a mom-and-pop pet food store or Apple. Fraudbook offers targeted advertising and 'anonymous' user data to third parties. As along as Apple keeps the data internal, Cook is correct, Apple is only doing what any competently run business does: know your customers.

      1. lost_in_space

        Re: "Apple don't monetise customers"

        "It is the degree that is import. [...] As along as Apple keeps the data internal, Cook is correct, Apple is only doing what any competently run business does: know your customers."

        I agree that the degree is the material aspect - and Apple is certainly less culpable than FB in this respect. However, it simply isn't true that Apple are blameless as Cook implies - they *don't* keep all the data internal to Apple - see, for example, the API for apps to access a user's contact list (just like Android/FB).

        https://developer.apple.com/documentation/contacts

  8. Phukov Andigh Bronze badge

    isn't there a name for this?

    so an Elected Government Official (most states if not all, Comptroller is an elected position), as part of a 4 year term, can use government employee money (very little if any of which is his own, or will affect him financially if its lost due to errors in his judgement or "bad luck"), to attempt to control a Private Sector company (by trying to use "big investor level powers" to change leadership), outside of any legal actions or law enforcement mandate?

    isn't there some sort of near-derogatory term for that sort of government/business relationship?

  9. JohnFen Silver badge

    That's too bad

    ""We're not trying to harm Facebook, we're trying to make it a stronger company," the comptroller contends."

    That's too bad. Facebook is harmful to pretty much everybody. I hope (against hope) that it goes down in flames.

  10. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

    Forgetting something? Maybe a bit of bias?

    It is not exactly breaking news that the Obama campaign leveraged FB data in almost exactly the same way as CA. I believe that I read about it at the time. Wasn't the website called "The Register"? And what is new about that story is that within the last couple of weeks, we have an admission from a FB employee that they were completely cool with it because Obama was one of the good guys? Again, did I not read about it on "The Register"?

    FB is perfectly happy to provide its user data as an (undeclared) in-kind contribution to left-leaning causes. That this article only mentions CA is straight-up bias.

    1. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Forgetting something? Maybe a bit of bias?

      "Obama campaign leveraged FB data in almost exactly the same way as CA."

      The primary difference is that the Obama campaign didn't deceive people about what they were doing. The researcher who obtained the data for CA did.

      In both cases, though, Facebook was in the wrong.

    2. The Nazz Silver badge

      Re: Forgetting something? Maybe a bit of bias?

      ""The 'what's happened' in this case being the revelation that Facebook had allowed a researcher to harvest the data of around 50 million of its users for use in creating targeted ad campaigns in the run-up to the 2016 US presidential elections for political strategists at Cambridge Analytica.

      "There's a risk to our democracy," Stringer said."

      Weird. Would he have been complaining had Clinton won the election?

      Maybe he didn't notice but democracy ( in it's current form) won anyway.

      At every single election, even down to Parish Councils, someone somewhere uses data to target potential voters to sway them to vote their desired way.

      Chances are, over 99% of voters vote they way they do regardless of any targetting.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Forgetting something? Maybe a bit of bias?

        ""There's a risk to our democracy," Stringer said."

        Weird. Would he have been complaining had Clinton won the election?

        -=-=-=-

        Most people would be okay with this activity, if Clinton had won.

        But since Trump has won, there has been a refreshing bit of new scrutiny from the Press and the general public, which is a (the only?) good thing about the election. Another example is the #MeToo movement. Harvey Weinstein (close Friend of Hillary) would have been protected had Trump not won, and the whole male sexism #MeToo crusade would have been much too close to First Gentleman Bill Clinton to be tolerated by Madam President.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'Maybe a bit of bias'

    We learned today that up to 2 Billion users may have had their information exposed, and you want to play petty politics here?

    "Facebook Inc. said data on most of its 2 billion users could have been accessed improperly, giving fresh evidence of the ways the social-media giant failed to protect people’s privacy while generating billions of dollars in revenue from the information."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-04/facebook-says-data-on-87-million-people-may-have-been-shared

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43649018

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mega-Problem

    Looking forward to Zuk's Apr 11th testimony. But the current talking points aren't enough. There's a much wider problem here. Even if you close out your Facebook account etc, Zuk's Industrial Spying-Advertising Complex tracks you everywhere anyway (both users and non-users).

    Everyone is tokenized and that activity is tracked across all sites that share data with Facebook, sites with FB Like buttons, and Experian or other Data-Brokers who have their own tokenization. This is a major privacy issue.

    If you're not even a FB user, how do you opt out? Will Washington pick up on this vicious cycle... And how about managing info held by Data-Brokers? Congress has done zuk all about Equifux! Want to opt out? Hell is waiting for you there. Not many Investigative journalists have succeeded at that joy!

  13. strum Silver badge

    Threatening democracy? Meh.

    Threatening shareholder value? Outrage!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019