Unbounded, unbridled data-mining & monetizing is Facebook's business model.
Ethically-sourced data-mining is an oxymoron.
Zuckerberg's data-mining was felonious from the first.
Zuckerberg's unethical practices to create "Facemash," his "Hot Or Not" Harvard clone, got him hauled in front of Harvard's disciplinary board. He was charged with breaching security/violating copyrights/violating individual privacy (Harvard Crimson, 11/19/03)
Feeding our data to Obama in 2012, gratis, was felonious.
Sessions setting up grand juries to nail Obama-Clinton-Zuckerberg et al. is long overdue.
Algorithms—vs. AlGore rhythms—rule the world. In retrospect—hard to believe—the latter may have been the lesser evil.
It's true. In this Disinformation Age, whoever controls the searches controls the world
No one seems to have noticed the inflection point.
Was it during Clintons? Or was it Obama? (Trump is simply the catalyst.)
Facebook/Google are opaque, untouchable threats to democracy. They must be dismantled.
5
Zuckerberg is Big Brother, soon his face will be on the log-on screen, as he watches (via your computer camera) and listens (your computer mic).
Its absurd to post (or "Like") information to Facebook.
If he doesn't sell your info, it's hacked as happened last week.
He pretends to be naive, but he's really evil.
6
How hard we work to avoid looking at reality! Facebook is built on monetizing individual communication, using what you or I say or think or read for purposes that we do not intend. For other peoples' purposes. Abuse, deception and manipulation are central to its business model.
While the outrage over Kavanaugh has centered on the fear of overturning Roe, Griswold, which ended restrictions on birth control, is also a major target of the right. Griswold, like Roe, was decided in part, on the basis of a right to privacy – a right which is not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to privacy is derived from a combination of natural law, and case law such as Griswold and Roe. This is the “settled law” referred to by the new Supreme Court justice in his recent testimony – the “settled law” that can now be overturned by that very court. Privacy is the right under attack by the powerful tech giants such as Amazon and Facebook. The shadow world of Cambridge Analytica is another concern. Many Americans are already uneasy at some of these intrusions into their data. We need to strengthen the right of privacy with protections that will seriously undermine the business models of many tech companies. This will be resisted by the politicians these companies have helped to elect. As the battles is joined over Roe and Griswold, the left should also seek support based on enshrining a constitutional right to privacy.
2
When the sole focus is manipulating data for profit and the founders have demonstrated extensive lack of a common sense perspective of decency then the behavior will never change.
Mark Duckerburg has Been a relentless advocate of breaking common sense boundaries and ask for forgiveness later. When intertwined in a culture that venerates prodigious talent and success then he has no grown up with a mindset that there’s is and will be no limits to his transgressions.
Universally a common sense policy of restrains need to be negotiated with FB otherwise the social, political and economic impact this platform creates is a precursor to global mayhem
1
Maybe Facebook hasn’t learned anything, but I did. I deleted my account.
13
Its rather disturbing that the NYT's Editorial Board has no idea what the true problem with Facebook actually is, considering the fact that you have a contributing writer on your payroll who is one of the clearest and understandable authorities on this subject - Zanep Tuferki (spelling?). Apparently, you don't read your own paper. The problem with facebook is their business model. Mark Zuckerberg makes all of his billions off of advertising, and he is not going to kill the golden goose by rejecting or regulating their advertisements. Why would he when no one understands what he's doing.
7
It may be that if Facebook removed all it's vulnerabilities, the business would no longer be viable. But expecting Facebook to pursue this goal is like asking our Republican politicians to fight Russian hacking. Why would they do this?
Facebook has the numbers. They know that the public has an insatiable interest in tablioid tales. Factual information cannot compete for clicks with Hillary Clinton running a child sex slave operation.
8
This is and has always been a real joke. The American people are almost exclusively "suckers." I don't have a Facebook account. Why? There is nothing that is "free" that is going to make my life "better." Unless I include the air and water that is not under corporate control. That is fading fast too, Even the "smartest" ( and well to do) millenials need to learn the hard way. Vote with your feet. You are not being saved. You are being sacrificed.
6
I'm having trouble reading and understand in everything
I am not surine ition in this matter and I have been trying to get ahold of you to say a few words about what you want me to do with the information I have been trying to get a hold of your number and we can get the ball rolling on this matter and I will send you the details of the garage and the status of my order and refund the amount to be paid for the interview on the phone with my mom and sister are you doing today and how much for the interview on the phone with my mom and sister are you doing today and how much is the deposit and the status of my order and refund the amount as soon as possible so I can tell you that I love you and miss you so much and I will get back to you on that one and the other one is the one I was looking for the same thing as you can see you soon and have a great day and I will get back to you on that one and the other one is the best one is the one I want me to bring anything from the grocery store and I will get back to you in the morning and I will becomes available in the afternoon and I will be there in regards to a few of my friends and I are going to go to the bank and get it to you on the phone number for the interview on the status of this order and I will get back to the office I will send you my mom said you were going to send me a picture of you and your family a very happy to see you and catch up on the status of my order I haven't
2
Not a fair comparison between FB and CA. You must sign up for FB but CA just signed us all up without our permission or knowledge.
One was involuntary and should be severely penalized for their brazen privacy breach.
1
"With less than a month to go before the American midterms, is Facebook really ready for its next big test?"
No.
5
Facebook could care less as long as the rubles and other money rolls in. It's top executive attended the Kavanaugh hearing to support Brett Kavanaugh. Facebook gaslights the World about how it cares.
12
The Internet was designed by a couple of computer-literate guys as a method of sending data, a method of networking computers.
DARPA - the Pentagon research program became owner.
A method of transmitting page designs, HTML, became the standard for the first Web browser.
The Internet was NOT designed as a marketing tool. It was not designed to allow for an AOL - (idiots) On Line, as the knowledgeable called it, or other massive data theft tools, constantly fought against by those concerned with their privacy (a shrinking subset of users).
Facebook, everybody’s back fence for showing off pix of the grandkids, cats, and political opinions, where anybody can lie about anything “there” or on any other “social network”.
What happened was not “designed”. It metastasized. Nobody watched as rights to negotiate contracts with the companies, not have them imposed, was given away m. And they stole our lives. sold or traded them.
It’s time for Facebook to admit it did wrong allowing Russia to choose our President, let thieves steal what it knows about us, etc.,and self destruct. Billions lost - ethics saved.
It’s past time to bar advertising - not sales pages, but ads which track and build files on each of us.
Apple just sent iPhone users a new 16-page “agreement” on how it would use phone OWNERS’ data. No right to challenge it, except by tossing away a $1,000 phone.
Windows-10’s requirement you must log on to Microsoft computers should be banned.
It’s become plain wrong.
15
Zuck,b,g doesn’t care , he’s insulated from all the hoi polloi, he still thinks he’s created a great thing and as long as the stock price stays high, so do he & Sandbug
11
This editorial would be impactful if it was not one sided. Rather than say “In the meantime, falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford are going viral on Facebook”, it should say “In the meantime, unverified and possible falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford are going viral on Facebook”.
The naked partisanship displayed by that one gratuitous parenthetical statement in the editorial eliminated the impact of what would otherwise have been a strong editorial. It indicates that The NY Times is only interested in those selective truths that further its own political interests. It also indicates that The NY Times is not interested in getting to the truth no matter where it leads to.
I am very disappointed.
2
I find this editorial to be incredibly naive, casting what have been deliberately designed features implemented as part of Facebook’s business model of selling personal data to advertisers and political campaigns as “bugs.” Calling these violations of privacy “breaches” belies what they really are: transactions made for profit.
8
The solution is simple - make Zuckerberg PERSONALLY pay for all the downstream negative effects of his company's failings. He controls the voting stock, so he should OWN the consequences. This is called accountability.....
4
You forgot to mention a second 40 million accounts that were breached and reported on in Wired. The first 50 million accounts that were breached were notified about it, but the second 40 million weren't, according to their story. Whether that story was correct or not, I wasn't notified about the breach in my account, but I found it by following the directions given by the NYT. Thank you so much! Please continue your great coverage of Facebook. I don't want to quit my FB account, but it needs to be safe.
2
When Joel Kaplan, a senior policy executive of Facebook is seated immediately behind Brett Kavanaugh, in support of the Judge at his Senate confirmation hearing, should we be surprised if Facebook took a position, with Cambridge Analytica’s help, to influence the election?
11
"Did Facebook Learn Anything From the Cambridge Analytica Debacle?...…
is the wrong question. We should be asking; did Americans learn anything from the Cambridge Analytica debacle?
27
The current situation of social media's destructive effects was entirely predictable. The main reason: You get what you pay for. If Facebook were to charge even a $0.05 annual subscription fee, its user numbers would plummet. The "free" model and the ability to indirectly "connect" and reciprocally share information with an abnormally large number of others has hooked millions of Facebook users. It's digital crack: people are quickly addicted to the ego boost of having a platform bragging about their ordinary lives and peering into the lives of others as entertainment. (Twitter is an even more extreme example of this.) Most users are oblivious to security concerns. Many other web sites that glommed on to allow or even require users login through Facebook exacerbated the security problem. In order to keep users Facebook must continue to dumb down access, thus making it even more vulnerable to hacking.
3
Facebook understands just fine how people are manipulated. Techies ought to be as responsible as someone yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. The internet is a soulless marketing experiment gone wrong. Employers should not force workers to use it. It’s unpaid and untaxed work for those of us not designated computer technologists yet it still takes up all our time.
And Facebook's standards essentially don't stand public scrutiny like traditional media. At a low level, an innocuous post for my business was rejected (I was willing to pay for it), apparently because I referred to Facebook. Full stop. Well, I don't really know. Because they don't tell me why. Ultimately, they control the platform. Fortunately, we still have media outlets, like the NYT or the public broadcaster here in Australia, the ABC, who believe the people are the foundation of the free press - and that is what drives their behaviour and actions.
Zuck did learn from the NOT-A-BREACH C'Analytica wholesale: he could shoot his members' privacy on 5th Ave, and he'd not lose a single one apparently. So he did again. "Dumb [un-Fit to Print]s."
On the other hand, did the Times and other media groups learn anything from traitorous Zuckerberg Facebook's deeds, instead of continuing to beg people to Like them and their writers there? Seems not.
Useds[sic], don't "check in" to Facebook, don't use their app or their website, don't report or block any user there, don't give them your private phone number(!!!) for two-fac, don't request an unsubscribe (as if they'd honor that!), and don't DMCA-nastygram or C&D them if they're using something proprietary of yours. Just delete your account there (wait, you still have an account there?!), route all messages from them to Spam, and abandon that vile ship.
Anything less empowers them—and putin.
1
As with other powerful entities, Zuckerberg's Facebook doesn't care if there are not consequences for them personally. All of his/their previous "apologies", and future ones are disingenuous. Why is Congress such a sucker? Oh, I know they need to protect their own kind.
Just like most content on cable and broadcast networks, Facebook also provides nothing meaningful to society or humankind. It's another distraction for sheeple.
It seems that no one of the tech side of Facebook has any common sense nor morals, which unfortunately led to data and information being lost to hackers or worse to Facebook partners. Until the ethos in Facebook changes information will continue to be "lost". Maybe they should hire some IT guys from banks which do try to be secure from hacking.
So, I haven't even read the article - just the heading. And I'm thinking, why don't you give a little background on the topic of Software Quality Engineering (SQE) before you drop the morality hammer on these folks. Complex systems simply cannot be 100% tested for flaws prior to release into the marketplace. Recall the Reagan Years of the Star Wars laser-based protection system. The estimates at the time of 100% testing used the scenario of 1 test per second continuously until the thing was done to take 1^38 ... years. Big number. So digging the grave for the FB folks is premature.
1
Facebook learned that there are no consequences.
I’m so surprised this keeps happening.
After all...the company’s motto is “move fast and break things”
1
I said this back in March, and it bears repeating now: Zuckenberg and Sandburg should resign. They failed.
2
How in the world is Sheryl Sandberg still COO? Why isn't there a tougher examination? All the attention on her personal interests with leaning in and option B and her late husband all deflect from either an incompetence at what she's supposed to be doing at Facebook, or a purposeful deflection to keep attention away from what she's doing at Facebook. Both bad. Which is it?
"In response to such concerns, Facebook has set up a “war room” in its headquarters to monitor potential foreign influence campaigns during elections." Okay... Will this Facebook "war room" be an equal opportunity defender against all foreign attempts to meddle in the internal politics of all countries. That is will it block US attempts to meddle in foreign countries politics as well? I mean, the US has whole departments set up in the State Department and CIA alone whose whole purpose is meddling in other countries politics. So the question well worth asking and just one reason the tech companies desperately want to avoid getting dragged down into this hypocritical morass come hall of mirrors. Anyway, what's good for the goose... Fill your boots Facebook and be sure to block the insidious activities of those crafty Americans as well! Oh to be a fly on the wall when this comes up.
1
I gave up Facebook to go to Instagram. Then Facebook bought Instagram. With ever increasing ads I gave up Instagram and bought a land line phone, a pad of paper and stamps. Now I call, write notes, mail letters and send photos to friends and family. No ads, no hacks, no reboots no scams. So basic yet so satisfying.
7
What must always be remembered when discussions about social media come up is that Facebook is not compulsory, your world will not end if you ditch it. It's Candy Crush for the literate. The press report on Facebook as if it is some life sustaining "must have"
1
It would fascinating to know if all them --emails providers, banks, brokers, etc. -- are selling phone numbers supplied for account authentication.
Gmail? Verizon-yahoo? Your too big to fail bank?
Why aren’t users likewise dissected and analyzed then criticized for the results? It is not impossible to decline to use FB or any other app/site/feature. Once onboard, it isn’t impossible to walk away. Yet all of the fault is heaped upon the provider and user moderation is often described as a Herculean task. Grow up America. Stop being lemmings.
FB learned they need to put more lipstick on the pig. The world learned just how fabulously gullible most Americans are. And I learned some ppl who I thought I knew I really didn’t.
2
It's ironic when a bunch of journalists try to comment on the complexity of a breach with zero computer science knowledge. Truly humbling - or shall I say misguided at best.
The only thing Facebook is prepared for is how to mine personal data to make money. Don't use Facebook, make Zuckerberg's stock worth zero.
4
Facebook doesn’t care, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.
2
To date Facebook’s PR strategy for each new breach of private data or public trust has been to state something along the lines of “Facebook cares deeply about [this issue]. We want to do better.” But then they don’t. Ho hum.
3
Do we actually believe FB is the only company with a problem with internet security? Let us nor be naive. Each time you use a computerized device, for whatever reason, they’re mining your every move. This includes such seemingly benign applications like Microsoft Word, Amazon.com purchases, Chase credit cards, and, yes, the music I buy and listen to on Apple’s iTunes. I believe Facebook gets into so much trouble compared to their big-time competitors because they are so large, a couple of billion monthly users. All the rest of these internet companies have FB like problems, they’ve just not been exposed yet.
2
Information security may be difficult, but some of us suspect 'greed' as the reason Facebook allows (or promotes?) the use of private consumer information for advertisers' use; and the potential hacking by extraneous forces. At the same time, regulators seem to be looking the other way, a clear dereliction of duty in checking on the ethics/morals of such a powerful company...and the harm inflicted on everybody. Has the company become so big, too big to fail, that it may require cutting it's size and scope? If we decide to allow this ongoing 'freedom' to operate unsupervised, perhaps we must impose the discipline to police devious practices...that seem to be proliferating like weeds right now. Sensible regulation ought to be a welcoming breath of fresh air, as the current practice of 'voluntary' monitoring seems out of control.
1
Facebook helps its users organize all sorts of political activity even acts of terrorism. Facebook has benefitted financially from dubious efforts of advertisers to get information that their users want to keep private. The fact that the Trump campaign mastered the art of abusing Facebook was a major factor in the close elections in several states that Trump won.
1
Facebook is in the business of selling personal data. You might say it is selling advertising, but targeted advertising is hard to do without all the data in the hands of the advertisers. Specifying filters (like buying a shirt) for who does and does not get an ad is completely inadequate for most advertisers. They need and want the raw data not only to select recipients, but also what to sell and at what price.
So Facebook has to sell personal data. Telling them not to is like telling a tobacco company not to sell nicotine.
7
Whatever the cost to the individual and society if the state has willingly come to be dictated by the big money, how different the tech giants like Facebook will behave when it comes to protecting the individual privacy and liberty is concerned, specially when the life entered data sale turns out to be a lucrative business in the market place gone wholly anarchic and restraint free?
I wouldn't be too impressed with Mr Zuckerberg's being "upfront" about Facebook's failings. The central tactic in his armory is to admit a shortcoming, express great regret about it, and promise to do better in the future. Again and again.
A more balanced article might also have been more straightforward in pointing out that falsehoods about both Ford and Kavanaugh himself have been "going viral on Facebook".
4
I'm willing to wager that FAR MORE defamatory posts about Ford than Kavanaugh have gone viral.
The rightwing, fact-free, Fox Fake News, Russian troll farms promulgate far more mischief and lies than any groups on the left so, certainly far more than any public, well known, mainstream centrist, liberal,mornleft organizations do.
Only one of the two major political parties, e.g., is anti-science, anti-facts, anti-women, anti-immigrant, and pro-Trump!
1
While I have no love of Facebook - and rarely use it - I think the NYT is conflating two unrelated problems. The Cambridge Analytica issue was truly egregious since Facebook was consciously allowing other entities to use Facebook collected data on its users. The breech, while showing weaknesses in Facebook security, is hardly unique. The problem of maintaining security while making user access simple is complex. This wasn't the first and won't be last data breech we shall see.
5
Yet, the breach is far worse than with many other tech and financial companies because
1. Facebook amasses so much more data on its users.
2. Facebook has so many more users.
1
Facebook’s business model is based upon profit. To make millions of decisions rapidly, it depends on machines, not more expensive and slower humans. Instructing machines in wisdom is beyond technologies grasp, especially when those drafting the machine instructions have no wisdom themselves. Only coding skills.
So, Facebook cannot do what is required of it using its fundamental basis in machine algorithms.
A more basic question: whether they WANT to do so - that is dubious as well. The profit motive appears to dominate over any service motive. Service is provided only if profitable.
8
Why do people log into other websites using Facebook? Why don’t they use a Password Manager?
More importantly: why are they still on Facebook?
Now that Facebook has helped everyone get connected with whomever they knew in school, kindergarten and the people in line waiting to purchasing ice cream from the truck... why stay on it? There are other options of staying connected. More or less effective, but there are.
Facebook knows they have a captive audience. Start leaving in droves and they’ll know better.
I left Facebook. I don’t miss seeing the latest updates of who went where and ate what...
19
Agree, 100%.
I'm amazed that many reputable organizations require Facebook for commenting and that many still have Facebook sites, links, etc.
For example, one cannot comment on Politico without doing so via Facebook. Huffington Post long ago abandoned its own commenting system.
Even Consumer Reports has a Facebook website!
It's always wonderfully ironic to see a news organization or tech site run an article on the pitfalls and privacy issues with social media and then there's a Facebook link for commenting, sharing, etc. That is, for being TRACKED!
4
I am sure that Ajit Pai is hard on the case (sarcasm). We refuse to even try and control phone scams and robo calls, why would this be any different? Why should Zuckerberg worry when we refuse to regulate let alone prosecute and hold companies accountable for their behavior even if that behavior has been proven to be detrimental to our country's well being, safety, and used for nefarious purposes. The EU is our best hope of sensible regulation.
17
Mark Z keeps saying it is Facebook's job to protect user data, then keeps failing to do so. Again. Consumer protection laws like those recently implemented in Europe are a part of thre answer. Part may be to involve our national security assets in hardening their code to prevent breaches, since FB is being used to undermine governments.
But beyond all that, Z and his executive team need to be punished for their repeated failure to do their job. If it were users' money being stolen we would expect that. If FB has proven anything, it is that these days user info is more valuble than money. The FB board should be answerable to the SEC just like the SEC is going after Musk at Tesla. Mark Z should be removed from controlling the company.
Finally, FB should be made to pay $$$ to every customer whose data was breached. They have the money, and the damage is continuing.
Your data is YOUR data. Like your bank or broker or doctor or lawyer, the fact that you share it with them does not give them the right to misuse it or allow it to be stolen. That is their fiduciary responsibility. Fiduciary regulations must be applied.
15
‘Social media’ remains entrepreneurial and is not a reliable source of information as it has no real standards. It remains a source of unfounded anecdotes ie. gossip. Entrepreneurs routinely must leave before a venture stabilizes into a reliable business. ‘Social media’ is a long way from achieving the validity of good journalism.
8
Please understand Facebook's motivation is profit, pure and simple. The company will do as little as absolutely possible to fix problems that don;t impact their bottom line, and breaches, while hurting their reputation, do not impact long-run profit. Unless there is a severe, continuing financial penalty Facebook will continue to pay lip service to privacy and do nothing to fix anything related to privavcy.
25
It would cost a lot of money to monitor posts on Facebook and it would be very difficult to identify the bad ones. I suspect Facebook will not make this a priority.
5
There is a need for greater regulation of social media companies in one form or another. Companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and others have made many positive contributions to advancing the good of the commonweal, but their role in society and the so-called 'new' economy should not exempt such firms and their leadership from being held to account when their actions [repeatedly] give rise to unintended consequences. The time has come to rethink thoroughly the nature of our traditional 'telecommunications' regulatory regime in order to better align necessary regulations with state-of-the-art technologies and innovative business models.
7
December 3 will be the 10th anniversary of when I joined Facebook. I noticed right away that it has the potential to be as revolutionary as the printing press was 600 years ago, as that invention made the publication of information increase exponentially. That sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought about the Renaissance. Facebook and other social media allow anyone anywhere to broadcast anything for all the world to see. They make real, true democracy possible and put it within our grasp.
Debacles like the one this editorial is about show how fragile that possibility is. Who doesn't like democracy? Autocrats and oligarchs. They have already declared war on the people and are dividing and conquering by creating distrust in social media in ways that convince people voluntarily to stop using Facebook and all the others. People are willing to yield their freedom for more security. Democracy is in danger.
After the Cambridge Analytica scandal story broke seven months ago, there has been a noticeable drop in the activity of the Facebook newsfeed. Our revolution is being squelched. The power of the people is being stolen. Fear is not just the mind killer, but also the democracy killer.
Everybody, fight back before it is too late.
2
"They make real, true democracy possible and put it within our grasp." We had a much stronger democracy before the advent of social media. The difference is that the latter has enabled everybody to express an opinion, however uninformed, without doing anything about it.
4
@Mike Volkman
Wow. Just. Wow. Slow down with the kool-aid, bro. Here's the thing: FB is a publicly traded company that is in business to... wait for it... wait for it... MAKE MONEY FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS! Your 'revolution' has been bought and sold 454 billion times over (current market cap of FB).
The FB business model is about nothing but selling personal information. Period. End of story. And if that means selling our democracy, so be it. Are you going to get on that conference call and tell the shareholders that FB is going to stop being evil?
Zuck has said since the beginning that the users are suckers. He didn't say so at the time, but your comments prove that is also true of the employees.
1
[head shake]
You're equating Facebook with the printing press?!
And, viewing it as a positive force for good, when it played a major role in electing a racist, raging, ignorant fool president?!
And, even contributed to putting Kavanaugh, an extreme rightwing, authoritarian judge, on the high court?!
[head shake]
Plus, you posted those accolades for Facebook after just reading an article that raises questions that it still hasn't taken privacy -- or democracy -- seriously!
Sad.
1
In our current deregulatory environment the only thing that will correct misuse of or carelessness with personal information by these platforms will be the inevitable lawsuits against these companies. As always, the cost of doing nothing will have to exceed the cost of change. And ultimately it will. When the incentives are right, the behavior will be right. And right now the incentives are wrong.
6
It's ever clearer that FB does not WANT to learn.
FB has already undergone a spectacularly fast deterioration from breathtaking innovation and growth to increasingly unfashionable clunkiness - tinged with more than a sinister hint of untrustworthiness.
Far from showing continued inventiveness, FB is increasingly set in its entrenched ways, and defensively opaque. Its (obviously still considerable) strength lies in sheer size, not agility.
Failure to boldly adapt (and sheer unwillingness to do so) will likely be FB's eventual undoing.
10
Facebook will change after all the founders are gone, and not until then.
Once the people who run it have no sense of entitlement, things will drift toward a more standard business operation.
As long as avaricious and egotistical brats run the place, then a singular drive for more money with as little ethical consideration as necessary is what we'll see.
Think about it. If Facebook shut down tomorrow, Zuckerberg would still have several billion in cash. He wouldn't even notice it, other than having to find something to do with his time.
Sometimes it's really a good thing for founders to go away.
Steve Jobs knew what the user needed. And they needed phones that fit into small shirt pockets. So i-phones were tiny.
All the other manufacturers went to large screens because they actually listened to their customers. Apple didn't give the users what they actually needed until after their founders had gone away.
6
Find a new target. This has all gotten really old. Facebook isn’t the only tech company with these issues.
1
Facebook represents just another (albeit more dangerous) case of why government must regulate a free economy. Making money is a huge (sometimes only) incentive in a free economy. In the process of doing so it is easy to lose sight of problems. And then there are those unintended consequences of rapid growth. Trust in the innovators or the self correcting market ares a nice theories but all too often neither has insured the public is protected or the greater needs of the nation are taken into account .
22
I share your concerns but these problems are complicated and facebook has committed a lot of resources to them.
Another reader wrote Facebook has had months to work on these problems and has done nothing. Frankly months in a large complex engineering problem barely allows time for you to hire the key good people, much less redesign the code.
These elections are critical and lets keep the pressure up, but lets not assume yet ill will on the part of facebook. If we all don't trust each other we all go down together.
5
Keep in mind that it is Facebook algorithms that determine who and what you see, so while your trust may not necessarily be misplaced it will certainly be circumscribed on Facebook.
20
@GrumpyLiberalinVA
this comment does not maker sense to me. As a computer designed ,I understand algorithms but do not understand why you think this can circumscribe or limit what can eventually be accomplished. Algorithms can be made as complex as necessary but it just takes time.
@cover-story
Selling/sharing your information is the foundation of Facebook's business model. That is how they make money. AI will not cure Facebook's data security issues. What Mr. Zuckerberg needs is RI, Real Intelligence. He does not have it. He knew long before the rest of the world found about Cambridge Analytica's access to Facebook users' data. He chose to not inform users. Why? Profit before People. That is why.
1
At a critical juncture in its growth at about 50 million users, Facebook had to decide if it would cross the chasm that had proven fatal to other social media companies before it. Facebook opted for full speed ahead on growth without thought toward the impact it was having on restructuring the internet landscape. All the bad behavior that had existed on the internet from its beginnings converged readily and easily on Facebook, driven by a revenue model that rewarded quantity over quality. That laser focus on growth delivered what Facebook's investors had expected and continue to expect. Team Zuckerburg has always driven the development of Facebook along that one dimension. The libertarian, or "wild west" of the internet, mentality encourages and rewards ROI, not social responsibility. Facebook is constitutionally unable to right its course ever. It will need to be broken into smaller pieces, like the telephone companies, or severely restricted, like Microsoft's antitrust restrictions on its Explorer browser. In any case, Facebook can't and won't act on its own. It will make excuses and beg forbearance as it continues to build capabilities that make it the conduit for bad behavior and bad outcomes but tremendous revenue growth, all to the detriment of its users and society as a whole.
15
The unreasonable premise to this criticism is that ceasing malevolent exploitation of a universal social communication engine involving billons of entries daily by consumers, and turning a business model around on a dime, are easy things to do. They're not.
Facebook has invested hundreds of millions already -- on its way to being billions -- to make its services more reliable, freer of such exploitation and more guarded in how it uses consumer data. Don't expect them to succeed overnight.
4
@Richard Luettgen
They've had months to do something about it, and haven't.
If they'd moved at that speed building Facebook to start with, it wouldn't be so huge now.
20
@Richard Luettgen It is doubtful that Facebook has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix problems they start. Even today, and it's becoming the new norm, Facebook accounts are hacked daily with friend requests popping up from your already existing friends. It does not take a genius to fix the problem. Since the 2016 election, Facebook has done relatively nothing with regards to fake news stories except let them be spread far and wide with their algorithmic structure. They could have a news section whereby people who want to read news from reliable sources can access, but they don't. They throw their hands up to Congress about privacy issues but Congress won't act and and Zuck and Co. continue to use Congress's inactions as an excuse. They can introduce adequate data privacy into their platform but it isn't as profitable. And the reality is people are leaving Facebook more now than ever. Many younger people (under 30) don't go on Facebook much anymore. And due to the issues raised here plus many others, I simply unfollow people even though I am friends with them. I will go their page if I want to catch up but I don't want to see what they ate for dinner coming across my computer screen and I certainly do not want to continue to see fake news stories and click bait advertising every time I log on.
6
Here, here! :-)
Given how many people I know are warning that they are not sending friend requests - but somebody is in their name - I’d say Facebook is failing badly at policing itself and protecting us.
I see a local tv station on Facebook allows comments on its stories, but doesn’t moderate them very well if at all. Facebook has become a channel for rewarding really bad behavior.
Cyber-bullying is rampant. Part of it is the lack of face to face interaction means people miss visual cues - and post things they’d never say to someone face to face.
Facebook is becoming like crack cocaine. But then Facebook exists to exploit its users, not serve them.
46
Facebook has served its purpose of bringing ordinary people into the digital age. Like AOL before, it's been outgrown by its audience and can now wind down and gracefully fade away.
20
Hey, I still have my aol email account for over 25 years. It works fine.. and no ads.
1
A mystery is why American consumers were so frightened by revelations their government was collecting data for law enforcement reasons from phone and tech companies, yet they so willingly volunteer every digital piece of personal data they possess to not only be collected, categorized and analysed by FB, but marketed and sold to anyone on the planet with cash to buy it.
43
It has been observed that while Europeans trust government while distrusting corporations, the US is the reverse.
16
First of all, Zuckerberg and all the lords of Tech are not honest people. They may have been at one time, although in Zuckerberg's case, I doubt it. Zuckerberg learned an important lesson from the Cambridge Analytics episode. He learned that he really doesn't have much to worry about and that he can get away with almost anything. If 50 million people closed their FB accounts, he would have to worry. But. They didn't and he won't. The implication in the title of your article was that he would learn of something that might influence him to be more moral, honest, and noble. Ha, ha, you are so naive.
62
Long ago, I decided to avoid social media. I now learn that I have been caught at the fringes of this business which destroys privacy. I know of one Facebook user who has my address in her contact list but Facebook cannot direct any ads to my nonexistent FB account.
I used to receive invitations from social media, like Facebook and LinkedIn, supposedly in the name of a friend, who never authorized the invitation. They had "harvested" millions of contact lists and had even figured out that I had more than one friend who joined those groups. When I did not respond I got emails, asking if I actually knew the person. I did not click on the links provided. Social media is not going profit from me.
I stayed away from Facebook because the deal is they grab all sorts of information about the user and run ads for those who want to exploit the user. One has to trust that FB will keep that information secure. That does not read like either a safe or a fair deal to me.
64
The potential for a corporation with the reach of a Facebook and Google to flood the "member" with ads that they have no interest in seeing is scary.
But scarier still is the unfettered access to convince billions of people that which the corporate tyrants wish to offer as political solutions has no parallel except in the dictatorships and absolute monarchies that have plaque human civilization.
And while people like Zuckerberg have a right to their politics, their ability to control, indeed, dominate the conversation is an invitation to the slaughter of ever democratic and liberal principle the western world has ever held.
To think that Zuckerberg has the interests of The people at heart because he dresses like a nerd and res
Idea in a neighborhood split-level, one needs look only needs to look at how he lives.
His split-level is surrounded by properties that he bought out, and he goes nowhere without a pack of armed goons to protect him.
And do you really think he flies everywhere he goes on a commercial aircraft?
Zuckerberg is not to be trusted with the types of power he has drawn to hand...And, neither are his corporate colleagues and lackies.
He's a demogogue in training!
4