Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies.
[1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...
Having two identities can save your life if you're a battered woman. Or of the wrong political persuasion in some countries.
I'm ok not 'liking' Zuckerberg's idea of integrity.
Facebook is not a small entity, they have overthrown governments and caused civil wars in third countries already.
However, FB needs a moot around their castle, so it acts via third parties, such as Cambridge Analytica.
And even if FB would not engage in large scale behavioral influencing, then through US law, various three letter agencies can force FB to hand over the data, all the while muting the company to disclose such practices.
He has been victim-blaming since Facebook was founded. (Remember the comments about how FB’s users were stupid to hand all that data over?)
Why expect him to stop at battered women or political refugees?
That isn't dishonest, that is behaving according to the role given.
"Having two identities is a reflection of how much trust I have in your integrity." -- me, to Mark Zuckerberg.
Over the past decade, I've probably had ~50 identities. Most have been minor, basically just an email address for some project or activity that I don't want linked to such persistent personas as Mirimir.
And it's also somewhat amusing, given how Facebook doesn't exactly advertize its origins as FaceMash. And this gem:
> I'm a little intoxicated, not gonna lie. So what if it's not even 10 pm and it's a Tuesday night? What? The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.
I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sole network. A lot of people on here (HN) and elsewhere have been repeating those sentiments for years. As naive as it sounds, I simply wish Facebook was not so focused on building its ad platform but rather took on a more custodial role (albeit much less profitable).
Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
An academic from Cambridge made an app on the FB platform. That gave him access to data which he then sold for commercial purposes. When FB found out, they sent a legal notice to delete this data and cease using it.
Like gdpr on steroids? I think this would ruin a lot of companies and make a lot of really interesting and useful services no longer possible... but I'm rather curious what it would really mean. I've never seen it proposed by someone who actually recognized what it would mean, though.
At the very least, there's been no societal consensus that we want the trade-offs that come from allowing every click, view, email, and contact to be scanned and used for profit in whatever ways companies want. It happened by pure assertion: the companies just did it and did all they could to avoid even letting people actually know so they wouldn't have to ask.
Maybe we overall would rather lose all the benefits in order to block the harms and dangers.
I'd much rather have the status quo (and stronger) around privacy regulations for medical records than live in a world without that but then be one of a few people who forgo use of common medical facilitaties over personal privacy objections.
It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts.
Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not how they make money and is not a core part of the product.
then, does each user with multiple friends sub-lists exhibit a lack of integrity as well?
only if by 'identity' he means 'set of collectable data' and this seems to be the case.
"An identity is the set of meanings that define who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a unique person. For example, individuals have meanings that they apply to themselves when they are a student, worker, spouse, or parent (these are roles they occupy), when they are a member of a fraternity, when they belong to the Democratic Party, when they are Latino (these are memberships in particular groups), or when they claim they are outgoing individuals or moral persons (these are personal characteristics that identify themselves as unique persons). People possess multiple identities because they occupy multiple roles, are members of multiple groups, and claim multiple personal characteristics, yet the meanings of these identities are shared by members of society. Identity theory seeks to explain the specific meanings that individuals have for the multiple identities they claim; how these identities relate to one another for any one person; how their identities influence their behavior, thoughts, and feelings or emotions; and how their identities tie them in to society at large." - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780...
They obviously don’t care.
Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
Depends on what you mean by "function". Enjoying cat photos or playing a round of a video game doesn't take any stake at all.
This is a great concrete example of a rule that Zuckerberg himself worked to promulgate, and is presently causing real ongoing harm.
Awesome. So you're going to change your HN username to your real name and put your address and phone number in your "about" section?
Facebook on the other hand is a network for the exchange of private or personal information, including for example people forming groups about particularly sensitive topics (abuse experiences, disease and so on), in which personal identity is important to not open yourself up to potential intrusion by people who are not trustworthy. (Cynically enough stalkers for example trying to inject themselves into support groups)
Which is also of course why privacy and identity considerations between HN and Facebook differ.
No, it's not for me.
It seems exactly the opposite to me: I would not want to use my real name to publicly discuss sensitive personal topics.
For example, I may not want my friends or employer to find out that I'm a drug addict. In many workplaces, it could cost me my job. What if someone else in my support group happens to be a co-worker of mine?
Also, maybe some of us don't want to live in a creepy ad-supported pan-option where the links you click become your actual identity.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
No, it doesn't. People are perfectly willing to troll under their real name. When Youtube forced people's G+ accounts to merge into their comments and people suddenly found themselves commenting under their real names, it stopped the trolling and hate... for like a week.
Hell, plenty of people on Usenet were assholes with their real names and emails in their signatures.