> Whether it's nefarious is debatable
Ok, I'll bite: try to debate how it isn't nefarious, because I sincerely cannot think of an argument.
Ok, I'll bite: try to debate how it isn't nefarious, because I sincerely cannot think of an argument.
If you don't have superbowl ads money, or already have a huge following, data and A/B testing is probably the only way to be profitable while doing e-commerce on your own website
Those are tools designed to market products, not handle super sensitive data, it's kind of like using hotjar to record sessions on your (super confidential) website to find pain points and bugs, only to whine that hotjar stores data about your users actions, that's the entire reason why you're a customer.
I really don't get the fuss.
I don't even get the point of advertising pharmacies, you don't need medicines to be advertised to you, it's even crazier that a part of the price of your meds would be "facebook ads budget"
And tbh I have more trust in the reliability of the infrastructure behind FB ads than in the spaghetti PHP code written in 2005 by a contractor for those pharmacies, or in the windows XP/vista computers that their employees use.
If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook.
And, user behaviour on a website can very well be confidential, for example they could easily track the cognitive decline of users over time as mouse movement gets more erratic and reactions slow down - super sensitive information if you ask me. The reason a person is a customer is because they might buy a thing, not to be analyzed.
Real or pulled from thin air?
"If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook."
My getpawnd list includes: Adobe (billion $ company), Dropbox (billion $ company) and Linkedin (billion^2 $ company) - twice!.
The bigger the company, the bigger the payoff.
In which case it is nefarious to advertise that they do handle super sensitive data correctly. Which Facebook does.
> If I had to bet on who's getting hacked, I wouldn't bet on Facebook.
This is moving the goalposts.
Plus you'll find that many will vehemently disagree with you kind of accepting as a given that data should be handed to FB carte blanche. It's a dishonest to start with such an extremely debatable starting point.
I say why don't we give them jack (nil) and start the discussion then.
This argument is like in sports: Woe me I can't win a price everybody is doping!
You are comparing security in response to an issue about privacy. Facebook's security around data that they shouldn't have in the first place is irrelevant.
Additionally, even a contractor today still could not create feature parity with Facebook as they do not have the network effect of Facebook. That's assuming the company/contractor would even try to build all of it themselves.
Or is the advertising not for prescription drugs?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertisi...
Then how did we manage to sell medicine or call doctors before this wonderful era of Facebook integration? Would without this Swedes simply go without healthcare?
They're just using the wrong tool for the wrong job for the wrong reasons, but it's not facebook fault in that case
I'm not entirely convinced of this personally, but it seems like a somewhat sound argument. I think that they know that it will inevitably be misused, and that they have enough incentive for allowing the misuse to continue.
Anyone who argues this should not be let anywhere near sensitive data.