Mark Zuckerberg Apologizes For the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says He Isn't Opposed To Regulation (theverge.com) 180
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg apologized on Wednesday evening for his company's handling of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. "This was a major breach of trust and I'm really sorry this happened," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again." Zuckerberg's comments reflected the first time he apologized following an uproar over how Facebook allowed third-party developers to access user data. Earlier in the day, Zuckerberg wrote a Facebook post in which he said the company had made mistakes in its handling of the Cambridge Analytica data revelations. The company laid out a multipart plan designed to reduce the amount of data shared by users with outside developers, and said it would audit some developers who had access to large troves of data before earlier restrictions were implemented in 2014. Zuckerberg also told CNN that he is not totally opposed to regulation. "I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.
Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
He is not opposed? (Score:1)
He is lying. Which he is not good at. Same with little Cheryl.
Re: He is not opposed? (Score:3)
He might be uncomfortable with it, but he probably accepts it is better PR and business just to go with it. At least this way he can have a meaningful conversation as to what appropriate regulation is?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.
Re: (Score:2)
By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.
Exactly. He also knows that is going to come in from other territories, so trying to ensure it matches what is already there makes it easier to implement. Financial institutions on the other hand, often have to deal with conflicting regulations, leaving them in position of needing to comply with them in a way they incur the least penalties.
Contradiction (Score:2)
He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
If he's going to double the security force, he needs to go from 15,000 to 30,000. That's quite a bit over "more than 20,000".
(Yes, technically 30,000 counts as "more than 20,000"-- but if he meant 30,0
Re: (Score:2)
Rather depends on the breakdown, i.e. how many were in "community operations", whatever the fuck that is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Of course he isn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be silly. "Having a meaningful conversation" here means he gets to set ("help shape") the rules.
Rules mean, to a large company, a couple extra warm bodies in the compliance department. Changing the rules means greasing the wheels, for which they have the means. For a small company those same rules might well mean that the whole thing becomes a non-starter. So rules keep the competition out. So of course he isn't opposed to rules. He's got the means to make them work for him.
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors. If anything the software and hardware are easier to set up today than they were 15 years ago. The only issue is getting your friends to try something new and younger people are doing that all the time so you could see attrition away from Facebook.
Having more regulations would raise the cost of compliance and give Facebook a way to stomp out competition either before it gets started or as it gets big enough to be slowed down by regulators and the cost of compliance.
How about Facebook stop performing psychological experiments on people for starters: https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Intentionally harming their users just to see if they can.
Big entry barrier [Re:Of course he isn't.] (Score:3)
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors.
To the contrary, there is a tremendous barrier for entry. A social network's value to a user is dependent on how many people are already signed up. A network starting up-- with by definition zero users-- has no value; it will basically have to invest money to effectively pay people to join until it has enough users to attract other users.
The same is true for many systems-- dating services, for example.
It's a vastly unstable system-- little operations stay little, and big operations grow nearly in propor
It was sod all use till Bell invented another one (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called the network effect.
Sort of like when Leonardo DaVinci invented the telephone.
Re: (Score:2)
That must be why Facebook only has three members then (Horseface & those two guys who actually created it).
Re:He is not opposed? (Score:4, Informative)
Having built a large company with a huge infrastructure. A set of regulations would probably hit a small portion of its budget, while having such rules in effect would raise the bar for any future competitors.
Imagine Facebook trying to fight off MySpace, if it needed to comply with so many regulations from the start.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure he's lying. There's a handful of ways that regulating social media could help out facebook. They'd have to pay to jump through the hoops to meet compliance, whatever that looks like..... but so would all the competition. Imagine you're 4 guys in college cooking up a facebook-killer like every damn fool was doing ~5 years ago. Now you're going to fail because you have zero hope of complying, or even affording to know if you comply, with the laws and regulation surrounding the industry. (
Re: (Score:1)
Boxes leave cambridge analytica (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonder what was in these boxes ?
https://twitter.com/bercbon4/status/976444112139366400
The Consvervative party in the UK used Cambridge Analalytica to help them during their election, is it a wonder it is taking so long to get a warrant ?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boxes leave cambridge analytica (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why limiting campaign contributions from corporations, PACs, and even individuals is SO important-- they can't buy these "edges" if they can't afford them.
Removing the ability for national parties to fund local elections is important, too, so that micro-targeting specific districts won't cause legislative majorities that drag down the goals of government into squabbling orthodox masses of mud.
Re: (Score:1)
So the news media gets 100% of the power, because every other form of communicating with voters is illegal.
No thanks. We have 1st Amendment free speech rights anyway. Courts probably won't accept your ideas for abridging them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure how you got to THAT conclusion. The media makes a pile of cash from candidates and parties. Instead, how about town halls, and actually showing up to them?
There is an unanswered question that the courts haven't addressed, which amounts to the volume of speech, and if we're equal, then how does one temper the campaign expenditures that buy the airwaves and ad sales, to the detriment of our poor ears and eyes? Campaign expenditure limits would be lovely, including public lists of campaign donors.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, how about town halls, and actually showing up to them?
How about we have speech that's free rather than speech that fits into the narrow realm of your personal approval?
There is an unanswered question that the courts haven't addressed, which amounts to the volume of speech, and if we're equal, then how does one temper the campaign expenditures that buy the airwaves and ad sales, to the detriment of our poor ears and eyes? Campaign expenditure limits would be lovely,
Whereas free speech is messy but necessary, regardless of how you judge the equality of the outcome.
including public lists of campaign donors. Then we'd know who's funding campaign and balloted issues.
So you can blacklist people.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go hypothetical for a moment.
Say you developed a pool of funds for any candidate, any issue. The candidate controls the funds, but cannot know who made the contribution.
Or congruently, all contributions are made to a blockchain, where all contributors are public knowledge from a pool that can be the only source of funds used (save personal appearances, one's own contributions to publicly visible media, and just plain walking a district)?
Free speech isn't so free. Some is completely overwhelming. Spend
Re: (Score:2)
You can just say you believe speech controls by government and that you don’t believe in free speech.
You want to pick and choose who can speak, when, and how much they can speak, how much they can spend, how they group together and organize their finances, where the money comes from, etc., etc.
We have free speech instead. We will keep it. We don't need your input on how we live our lives. We hear it. The answer is no. We have the 1st Amendment to protect us from people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your "we" is not my "we".
The First Amendment is not SCREAM ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE DOUGH. It's equal access. You have my input because: I can write, too, and will continue to do so.
I would also be in favor of the right not to have to listen to things like political robocalls. But one mountain at a time.
Egalitarianism is better than plutocracy. Citizens United was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in memory, and my memory is long.
Re: (Score:2)
We get it. You don't like free speech and you don't want it to continue. You've expressed that very clearly. No need to keep finding new ways to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking about yourself in the first person plural apparently is a speech pattern of yours. I get it.
Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.
The Zuck apologizes, but still claims:
"I did NOT have sex with your private data!"
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much (Score:1)
Fred fails to opt out of 'platform enable' which Facebook counts as permission to sell the data of his family friends and business colleges. FB lets all that data be used for 'research'.
Which is bollocks, Fred cannot give permission to hand over the data of people he knowns, and anyway Facebook turned this feature on by default, and Zuck knows the 'research' is really a catchall privacy excuse to sell data for any reason. Because rigging an election is "researching how to win".
In this case Aleksandr Kogan o
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Sorry (Score:2)
That's what he's really pissed about: Someone else out-earning him with "his" data.
Re: (Score:2)
My info is years old when I had to interact with Facebook's business API's but it is exactly their business model. A company could pay a certain amount to dig deep (via the APIs). Once a Facebook user used a Facebook login to another page or took a survey or played a Facebook game the company could use their API access to draw out everything about them and their friends.
If what I read was true, the 50 million people came from about 127,000 people filling out a survey. So they not only got the friends of
Re: (Score:2)
It's digital HIV. You're as risky as the riskiest person you've ... interacted with.
Re: (Score:2)
You're as risky as the riskiest person you've ever interacted with.
FTFY. As some TV show host put it: "This is like getting an STD because an acquaintance had unprotected sex with an infected person"
curious what NYT/Facebook's thoughts are on... (Score:1, Insightful)
A former media director for the Obama campaign said Facebook allowed them to access the personal data of its users in 2011 because the social media giant was “on our side.”
"Davidsen said she built a database of every American voter by using the same Facebook tool that Cambridge Analytica exploited to amass information on 50 million users."
https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/
Are we in that double standards place again with the liberal medi
Re:curious what NYT/Facebook's thoughts are on... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We have no idea if the Obama campaign did any of those things because ALL of the media and their "journalists" were too busy fawning and covering for him to do any actual investigating into what his campaign was doing. If the Obama administration and campaigns had faced 1/10th of the scrutiny that Trump has you might be shocked at was uncovered.
Re:curious what NYT/Facebook's thoughts are on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The demonization of Fox News is part of the strategy. The ops question about it being illegal to hire foreigners to a campaign? Did you know the Obama campaign also paid over $1 million to FusionGPS to dig dirt on Romney? Fox News reported it but since you've been programmed to ignore them completely I guess that'll be news to you.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone suggesting the suppression of information is the enemy of free thought. I make it a point to read more opinion that I disagree with than those which I agree. What's the point of an echo chamber?
Re: (Score:1)
I have found many people on the left to have a dreadful lack of curiosity. They are not interested in your argument, instead they will say "you don't have the right to make that argument." (On the account of you being male or white or whatever.) This disinterest in hearing the other side has often been attributed to the right, but the larger portion of people on the left are supposed to be intellectuals. Seems to me that seeing the apparent success of a worldview they loathe (Trump, Brexit) overrides their
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly do not not know what the word "treason" means.
Please feel free to cite your source about Trump's capital crime.
Mind boggled (Score:5, Insightful)
>' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
You did motherfucker!!
Take some damn responsibility for your actions. You think those billions were free? With great something, something something, something? How does that go again?
ffs.
Double? (Score:2)
Re: Double? (Score:1)
When you start with 10k and are mid-process of doubling to 20k.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's called the Zuckerverse, and the number base is a decimal between 9.1 and 9,.5 (I think).
Entropy of information (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
It is good to forbid government from telling The People how they must go around selecting candidates. One less thing to be inevitably twisted by those in power to maintain their power.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof: The current impetus to pass laws to change those rules are driven by one faction upset their candidate wasn't the choice.
They will fail at the SC if it ever gets that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shut the fuck up already. Fucking Trump voters..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Zuck... (Score:2)
.
You are a CEO of a huge company, act like one.
Of course... (Score:2)
Be nice if.... (Score:2)
Versus information that people voluntary put up on FB and only seems to be an issue because targeted ads to support someone they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed the bit about "friends of friends" also having their data scooped without their knowledge or consent by a third party application they had nothing to do with, and used to target them when they had no idea they were being targeted.
Re: (Score:2)
People ga
Re: (Score:2)
SFW quote-of-the-day:
"People are f****** stupid".
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook goes out of its way to hide its nature. You and I are aware of what it's about, but as far as most people are concerned, it's a harmless way to give up a little information about yourself and in return stay in touch with a lot of distant relatives and not-too-close friends you otherwise would maybe email every once in a while, if at all. Almost nobody understands how powerful meta-data really is. They're shocked and dismayed when you tell them (and maybe prove to them) that just from harvesting
Who will it be? (Score:1)
If I did that I would go to jail. Who's going to jail over this?
Prophesied in Song (Score:2, Insightful)
Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
Johnny Mathis and Denise Williams
1978
Guess it's over, call it a day
Sorry that it had to end this way
No reason to pretend
We knew it had to end some day, this way
Guess, it's over, the kicks are gone
What's the use of tryin' to hang on?
Somewhere we lost the key
So little left for you and me and it's clear to see
Too much, too little, too late to lie again with you
Too much, too little, too late to try again with you
We're in the middle of ending something that we do
It's all over
Oh, it
Nothing new really (Score:1)
Nothing surprising really considering that he Facebook board is mainly composed of ex-alphabet mafia people.
The whole thing is designed to get sheeple to post all of their juice details so that Facebook can sell trending data
This in itself must be interesting considering that most Facebook users also have multiple accounts
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuckerberg: Just
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I was about to post that quote.
SIgh, You deserve this... (Score:1)
Of course he's OK with regulation.
It practically kills future competition because no one will be large enough (in the early days of a company) to "comply" with all the nonsense regulations of how to properly care for you damn cat videos and gossip.
I would love to create a company and then pull up the ladder when it got big enough. Who wouldn't.
If you down FB, get ready for the next social media company to be..... Chinese!
When you screech at them about privacy, the response will be...
"GFY round eye."
Regulate away competition while we're vulnerable (Score:2)
That's what it sounds like to me.
Facebook has been able to spend its way out of some competing social media trends (ie, buying Instagram) and somehow buck others they couldn't (Snapchat), but mostly they were negotiating from a position of strength due to their network effect.
Now that their actual business model is exposed -- "You tell me, I sell you" -- and they're facing real risks of large-scale disaffection or defection to other platforms, of course they're fans of regulation. Broad social media regula
Not sorry (Score:2)
He is sorry they got caught.
Re: (Score:1)
He also dumped a ton of stock before the scandal broke. Hmm, I wonder why, and why the media is not reporting it?
All large companies love love love regulation. (Score:1)
Facebook is no different.
Any sort of regulation on Facebook's business model inarguably and by definition will favor Facebook over their smaller competitors.
Hiding behind government (Score:2)
"I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."
Really? Then just go ahead and institute whatever it is you think the regulations would/should ultimately be. Not only would that significantly decrease the odds of the government stepping in and doing it for you, but we could all enjoy the supposed benefits of that regulation right now rather than years from now.
But that would mean you would own the decision (and its consequences) rather than being able to say "the government made me do it." And that would take some cajones that this last week has stron
Back-handed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he's not (Score:2)
Regulation is a waste of time ... (Score:3)
... because it's a goddam membership naivete problem.
Facebook could spend more time/money educating its membership regarding the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
Most people have grown up with the Internet and it's incorrect to suggest that they are duped.
We don't fall for propaganda -- we embrace it and love it and feed it -- and we amplify whatever fits our world view.
Pulling up the ladder (Score:2)
Of course he wants regulation. Regulation will make it much harder for potential competitors to get started, helping Facebook maintain its market dominant position.
So... (Score:2)
Re:So what's the difference between Trump and Obam (Score:5, Informative)
From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.
Just did a quick read here [investors.com], no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.
TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data...Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.
So what you're saying is that in addition to investigating Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, Congress should also investigate all the Obama supporters that agreed to provide their friends lists? That's what we're after, right? Parties that give up other people's data without their consent?
Re: (Score:1)
What's the difference between what Trump's team did and what Obama did in 2012?
Obama did it with FB's blessing.
From other news reports either FB or people at FB supported Obama
Trump used a 3rd party company which didn't give FB their cut / fee
How is what Trump did worse?
see above
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else detect a slight whiff of vodka?
Re:So what's the difference between Trump and Obam (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
Re: (Score:1)
Lots of questions about a dozen things that have nothing to do with Facebook. No actual answers to any of them. But yeah, bad feels are the only thing that matters so congrats on successfully communicating them and helping people to forget the original poster's question.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda got the same impression from OP, but perhaps there's something here ( never mind the delivery of the message ); the method of acquisition of the data is important, not necessarily the acquisition of the data itself, nor how said data was used?
Still seems somewhat hypocritical given how this is being portrayed by the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm undecided how I feel about it, actually. I thought Obama's use was innovative, which would make Trump's use derivative. Effective though, so I can't fault either campaign in it's use.
Am I uncomfortable about privacy implications? No more so than I am about this life-leash we all carry around in our pockets that knows virtually everything about us.
What I know I don't like is how everyone is making a big deal about Trump being a horrible person for doing what Obama did 4 years earlier and being celebra
Re: (Score:1)
>Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Absolutely.
>Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods?
No. They broke Facebook's rules by sucking up the social graph, and Facebook let it happen because they were sympathetic.
Your other points don't strike me as particularly relevant. Political operatives are shady and undoubtedly all have dirt on their hands. Project Veritas managed to score similar conversations with the DNC. Yes, I know O'Keefe has a shady track re
Re: (Score:2)
The wording on laws is "directly or indirectly" and it is not illegal to hire foreign nationals for various work; donation and contributions from is illegal, directly or indirectly.
If you have been checking with the news yes Obama did. The companies he hired contracted work out to foreign nationals.
Re: (Score:2)
> Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.
Remember: Christopher Steele is a foreign national.
Re: (Score:2)
TV comedians and news broadcasters and Hollywood actors like Obama.
TV comedians and news broadcasters and Hollywood actors love Trump.
TV comedians now receive their jokes via Twitter, instead from their writing staff.
Broadcast news is never dull and boring any more. There is always something bizarre and outrageous to report. And if there isn't, they can easily make up some fake news. There's so much of it now, that no one can really tell the difference any more between real and fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Sure thing there genius.
And if I want to, say, hunt down who you are and hate-speech, ridicule, belittle and bully you into a public melt-down that's all right then?
Fantastic, because all of your private moments are now public and if I have the means and the motive I most certainly will have the opportunity.
Welcome to America 2.0. Freedom+$$$ vs Privacy+$$$. Let's see which one wins!
Re: (Score:1)