This sentence has been bothering me because it feels like his lawyers wrote it. It's specifically worded to not include issues like this one.
Ref: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/techburger/article/Zuckerbe...
If you have complete control over who sees it, that should mean that no one else has any control over it...
> If you have complete control over who sees it, that should mean that no one else has any control over it...
Actually that quote is false: the Facebook algorithm has almost complete control over who actually sees your content.
I'm not concerned who "sees" my data - I want to know who can access it. If all it takes is a friend with a shady device, it's not comforting at all.
Did FB every clarify if sharing permissions would mitigate that API access? because otherwise the only solution is to a) defriend everyone and b) quit FB.
From the NYTimes article:
>"But the BlackBerry app had access to all of the reporter’s Facebook friends and, for most of them, returned information such as user ID, birthday, work and education history and whether they were currently online." [1]
Birthday, work and education history are all things that user's "share" on FB no?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/fa...
This is weasel language, used to avoid saying anything you can be held to having said, when that becomes inconvenient.
The fairer question to ask is if the strategy team pitching such work/product understood the moral implication of the work.
Not a Facebook employee, but I've wrestled with these questions after years in investment banking and a bit of adtech.
Almost anything that pays well isn't going to the end goal of feeding orphans, or improving society in any way.