Cambridge Analytica

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
21,849
Location
Rollergirl
I don't use if for that reason. But I can tell you there's a high cost to that when so many of your friends use it for keeping in touch and planning social activities. Not using it isolates you. Perhaps in your generation or demographic that's not the case so you don't feel it or care. But for many of us it's a significant issue.

In my experience, that's a fabricated issue. What kind of friendship relies on a Facebook post? If you miss a social event because you didn't "like" it, then were your ever actually invited? Friends usually work together, or live within close proximity or God forbid might have actually exchanged telephone numbers at some point.

Facebook relies on this myth.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/14/facebook_server_configuration/

Facebook has said a "server configuration change" was to blame for an 14-hour outage of its services, which took down the Facebook social media service, its Messenger and WhatsApp apps, Instagram, and Oculus.

"Yesterday, as a result of a server configuration change, many people had trouble accessing our apps and services. We've now resolved the issues and our systems are recovering. We’re very sorry for the inconvenience and appreciate everyone’s patience," the tech goliath said in a tweet.


so seems like a good proof of concept for potential hackers ?
seems like an analogy with the death star.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
(from Zuck essay) What is Zuck talking about with respect to enhanced encryption ... it's https connection, is the data not encrypted at their premises, ?

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...say-shows-why-facebook-needs-to-be-broken-up/
What he’s proposing is essentially a beefed-up version of WhatsApp. Some of the improvements might be worthwhile. Stronger encryption can indeed be useful, and a commitment to not building data centers in repressive countries is laudable, as far as it goes. Other principles that Zuckerberg puts forth would concentrate his monopoly power in worrisome ways. The new “platforms for private sharing” are not instead of Facebook’s current offering: they’re in addition to it. “Public social networks will continue to be very important in people’s lives,” he writes, an assertion he never squares with the vague claim that “interacting with your friends and family across the Facebook network will become a fundamentally more private experience.”
just obfuscation, .like he exhibited as senate.


Sounds like the atrocity in New Zealand was also facilitated by Facebook


two execs also leaving (the sinking ship) https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/a-note-from-mark-zuckerberg/
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
Facebook could have redeemed themselves if they told us that some accounts had been deleted too, as a result of these 1.5million copies of the NZ video they removed.

seems their system is not fit for purpose if, on one hand, they can automatically fingerprint/identify a video (those 1.5million were not deleted by humans) but not trace them back to accounts/delinquents.
- if songs can be identified by playback of segments, are videos so different.

.... Wonder if the security at facebook premises is being enhanced too.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,163
You don't like Facebook do you :p

TBH I have little sympathy with anyone who doesn't approach Facebook as it truly is - don't put anything on there you'd worry about anyone else finding out about, etc. don't do stuff you'd only do in private and so on and pretty much assume it is gathering data on you.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
someones got to rage against the machine .. disgusted of Tunnbridge Wells

what the creator had to say

“We demonstrated that the Web had failed instead of served humanity, as it was supposed to have done, and failed in many places,” he told me. The increasing centralization of the Web, he says, has “ended up producing—with no deliberate action of the people who designed the platform—a large-scale emergent phenomenon which is anti-human.”

In particular, Berners-Lee has, for some time, been working on a new platform, Solid, to reclaim the Web from corporations and return it to its democratic roots.

Solid ???
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Aug 2008
Posts
35,707
Over time more and more people will come off Facebook guaranteed, I don't like the way they are heading in regards to data and merging of systems. People will turn more and more to forums and chat rooms and messengers just like it used to be.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
Inisghtful bbc four programme about google/fb content moderators, ironically now very relevant.
(programme highlights how the bbc have some standards versus the recent MJ hbo/c4 inflammatory documentary)

on one side you see google's ex content manager tracy wong , worryingly fairly flippant about the business motivation for blocking political content in turkey,
on the other hand, distressingly, the folks who did not block a livestream suicide.
Cut's with Zuck grandstanding too.
Apparently the iconic vietnam naked child image would now be blocked.

https://inews.co.uk/news/technology...attack-christchurch-facebook-youtube-twitter/
The Internet’s Dirtiest Secrets: The Cleaners

 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
So no indicaation from google/fb about any accounts they deleted as a conequence of their response to NZ attack,
just difficulty stating - "AI is not as good as we told people it was ...." etc, business as usual.

Retrospectively they must still know the accounts responsible for uploads to remove them, or, are they useful to security services for a watch list.
[expect to see Daily Mail fined for their hosting of material though, fb/google should voluntarily contribute to a victim fund ]

Inside YouTube’s struggles to shut down video of the NZ.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
I case you had any sympathy for poor facebook/google, interesting article describing mechanism far right use to groom new candidates, and what the companies did to facilitate this.

https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf

...
This report identifies and names the Alternative Influence Network (AIN): an assortment of scholars, media pundits, and internet celebrities who use YouTube to promote a range of political positions, from mainstream versions of libertarianism and conservatism, all the way to overt white nationalism. Content creators in the AIN claim to provide an alternative media source for news and political commentary. They function as political influencers who adopt the techniques of brand influencers to build audiences and “sell” them on far-right ideology.

The ideological loops between influencers and audiences can also take place within the course of a single video. Many of the YouTubers in the AIN make use of YouTube live stream, broadcasting to their followers in real time (users can later archive these videos so they remain accessible). In these cases, viewers can comment on influencer’s videos in real time, and the influencers often respond within the video. YouTube monetized these interactions with the introduction of Super Chat in 2017. Super Chat is a feature that allows users to pay money to have their comments highlighted and pinned on a comment stream.112 Super Chat is a particularly appealing feature for content creators because it is another way to monetize their content, even if their videos overall have been demonetized by the platform. A recent article in Buzzfeed News counted the Super Chat intake from two far-right videos, finding they each brought in $4,000 (of which YouTube takes a cut).113 In these contexts, viewers often purposefully make shocking or offensive comments in an attempt to get the influencers to read them on screen (Fig. 13). In one particularly disturbing video from March 15, 2018, political influencers Andy Warski and Baked Alaska, along with live streamer Asian Andy, filmed themselves wandering around Los Angeles for five hours.114 They called the event the “IRL Bloodsports” (“IRL” refers to “in real life”), and they set up a speaker with an automated voice that read Super Chat comments as text-to-speech. Within minutes, offensive comments were automatically being read out loud in front of their Uber driver. In many cases, these comments were specifically crafted to avoid any keyword filters or censorship attempts set up ahead of time from the live streamers or from YouTube. See, for example, the following comment which was read in full during the video: “Hey Baked, remember that time
...
Political influencers often fundamentally understand this. While they posture as being underground and facing censorship from YouTube, they also know they are being given a major platform from which to broadcast their views. On May 23, 2018, Paul Joseph Watson tweeted a photo of himself holding up a plaque YouTube sent to him for surpassing one million subscribers (Fig. 14). He added a caption, “YouTube secretly loves me.”
p41

great stuff
couretesy of https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-far-right-influencers-1202946918/
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
LOL - Zuck's crocodile tears ... the Google maxim 'do not harm' has more moral merit than his stance


In an op-ed published Saturday on the websites of the Washington Post and Ireland's Independent, Mr. Zuckerberg said such intervention is vital to protect both the welfare of users and the fundamental values of an open internet.

He said the U.S. needed European-style privacy regulations and called on regulators globally to set clearer rules regarding "harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability."

Every day, he said, Facebook makes "decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks," calling the work necessary. "But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn't ask companies to make these judgments alone," he said.

The piece, also published on Facebook, follows a difficult two years for the company, which has been assailed by legislators and regulators for failing to prevent foreign interference in U.S. elections, failing to adequately safeguard its users' data and failing to suppress hate speech and other forms of harmful content on its platform. Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg cited Facebook users' desire to have more private conversations as the impetus for pivoting toward more intimate, encrypted messaging-based products.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.c8d9cb6b8417
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,163
I case you had any sympathy for poor facebook/google, interesting article describing mechanism far right use to groom new candidates, and what the companies did to facilitate this.

Nothing in what you posted backs up any degree of complicity by FB/Google as you infer - those features have a multitude of uses outside of the usage identified and nothing to suggest they were specifically implemented to facilitate a specific agenda.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
I case you had any sympathy for poor facebook/google, interesting article describing mechanism far right use to groom new candidates, and what the companies did to facilitate this.

https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf

p41

great stuff
couretesy of https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/youtube-far-right-influencers-1202946918/

This just sounds like something everyone knows and isn't complex being given slightly scary terms for description to the non-Internet generation. I don't see anything of significance here. It just seems to be someone trying to make "some people have bad opinions and some people listen to them" sound like some technical wizardry to make the unfamiliar go "we must do something!".

It's a call out to politicians and judges who have their secretaries right their email for them and who still have VCRs.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
Nothing in what you posted backs up any degree of complicity by FB/Google as you infer
youtube permitting (purchased) un-censored feedback from live chats, which the report flagged as being used for extreme comments,
... they could remove that functionality/loophole, after seeing its misuse, rather than Zucks's new, hands in the air approach (our Frankensteins out of control)

This just sounds like something everyone knows and isn't complex
OK - it is a standard grooming strategy. .... how many of the internet generation are aware of the yt purchased feedback mechanism ?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,163
youtube permitting (purchased) un-censored feedback from live chats, which the report flagged as being used for extreme comments,
... they could remove that functionality/loophole, after seeing its misuse, rather than Zucks's new, hands in the air approach (our Frankensteins out of control)

If you run around removing features because of [this kind of] misuse you'd enter up with very limited functionality - it isn't like these features are used for just that one purpose.

So far it sounds like an unintended use of a feature intended to combat people fund raising externally using Patreon rather than through something YT had control of.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,923
After re-watching Snowdon movie (freeview last night) was reminded that the NSA reputedly use fb+google data, which seems largely forgotten in the discourse by the authorities/senate, for fb to clean up, they don't want to kill the golden goose ?
Zuck never seems to have referenced this exploit, if he did so, and suggested fb would be impregnable he would win customers.
 
Back
Top Bottom