Top Facebook Executive Defended Data Collection In 2016 Memo, Warned That Facebook Could Get People Killed (buzzfeed.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed: On June 18, 2016, one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's most trusted lieutenants circulated an extraordinary memo weighing the costs of the company's relentless quest for growth. "We connect people. Period. That's why all the work we do in growth is justified. All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends. All of the work we do to bring more communication in. The work we will likely have to do in China some day. All of it," VP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth wrote. "So we connect more people," he wrote in another section of the memo. "That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs someone a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools." The explosive internal memo is titled "The Ugly," and has not been previously circulated outside the Silicon Valley social media giant.
The Bosworth memo reveals the extent to which Facebook's leadership understood the physical and social risks the platform's products carried -- even as the company downplayed those risks in public. It suggests that senior executives had deep qualms about conduct that they are now seeking to defend. And as the company reels amid a scandal over improper outside data collection on its users, the memo shows that one senior executive -- one of Zuckerberg's longest-serving deputies -- prioritized all-encompassing growth over all else, a view that has led to questionable data collection and manipulative treatment of its users. The full memo is embedded in BuzzFeed's report. In response to the story, Zuckerberg wrote in a statement: "Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly. We've never believed the ends justify the means. We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year."
The Bosworth memo reveals the extent to which Facebook's leadership understood the physical and social risks the platform's products carried -- even as the company downplayed those risks in public. It suggests that senior executives had deep qualms about conduct that they are now seeking to defend. And as the company reels amid a scandal over improper outside data collection on its users, the memo shows that one senior executive -- one of Zuckerberg's longest-serving deputies -- prioritized all-encompassing growth over all else, a view that has led to questionable data collection and manipulative treatment of its users. The full memo is embedded in BuzzFeed's report. In response to the story, Zuckerberg wrote in a statement: "Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly. We've never believed the ends justify the means. We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year."
Re:FB thinks too highly of itself (Score:5, Insightful)
I could give my life story on there and they still wouldn't know dick about me.
Projecting the image that you know everything about everyone may spook the product, but it's great marketing.
Delete Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
Delete your accounts now! To hell with the Zuck!
Re: Delete Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
You will come to regret being a sheep some day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Delete Facebook (Score:5, Funny)
The sheep is the one who continues to eat the grass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Delete Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheep, this is about the law. Do you know it is against the law in most countries in the world to aid and abet terrorism, do you know that memo is basically an admission of guilt before the fact. Those facts can now be gathered by a deep level NSA/FBI raid on Facebook to determine based upon that prima facie evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] whether or not Facebook as an entirety, any employee, become aware of terrorist plot or on going terrorist activity, as a required by law and failed to report it, as required by law because it would hurt the company bottom line and hurt their bonus.
The law is the law, a top executive at facebook categorically stated they would ignore terrorist activity if it served greater use of Facebook and of course the bottom line. Especially when you take into account increased Facebook activity, more chances to force more ads, POST A TERRORIST ATTACK. Terrorism is profitable for Facebook, simple reality and that memo clearly reflects that. TERRORISM SERVES FACEBOOKS BOTTOM LINE. People are desperate for information and where do Facebook users go, why of course straight to Facebooks ads.
Use Facebook and you serve corporate terrorism, because acts of terrorism drives a shit bucket ton of views and that scum bag clearly knows it. So why would you continue to use Facebook, because I'm alright jack https://www.collinsdictionary.... [collinsdictionary.com], it serves my purpose, bugger everyone else haw haw. My response, find another way.
Re: (Score:2)
The sheep is the one who continues to eat the grass.
I'm a FB user, but that's +1 Funny. I prefer smoking the grass, but to each their own.
Are FB users sheep because they're doing something popular? Or because their choice differs from yours?
Re: Delete Facebook (Score:4)
Who's the sheep? The person who follows the currently popular fad or the person who can look at it, determine for themselves its overrated and then just say, "meh"?
So since I never had a (official, not shadow) Facebook account, does that make me a hipster for "not using them before it was cool", part of the "fad" of hating on them now, or am okay since I "determined for myself its overrated" and never joined to begin with?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have an account for exactly one reason: So nobody can register one under my (fairly unique) name and start putting bullshit up.
I was tempted to use it to post bullshit myself to let prospective employers that think they're clever by looking me up on Facebook read what they are supposed to think about me... but instead I decided that LinkedIn would be the better place for that.
His Twitter post claims it was to spur discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
https://mobile.twitter.com/boz... [twitter.com]
I'm not sure I believe anything any of them say but it certain does provide a different view of it than the article portrays.
Re:His Twitter post claims it was to spur discussi (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:His Twitter post claims it was to spur discussi (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of his intent, he was an idiot to put it in writing. You never write anything, or say anything on an electronic device, that you might have trouble explaining to a jury.
If he wanted to discuss these issues, it should have been a privileged conversation with an attorney in the room.
FB needs to hire some adult supervision.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You never write anything, or say anything on an electronic device, that you might have trouble explaining to a jury.
That coming from ShanghaiBill...aside, what a sad and lonely life to fear constant persecution which will likely never come.
Re: (Score:1)
https://mobile.twitter.com/boz... [twitter.com]
I'm not sure I believe anything any of them say but it certain does provide a different view of it than the article portrays.
I don't understand what the fuss is about except that its trendy to dump on Facebook for any and every conceivable or even illogical reason. All cyber technology comes with and implicit and inherent danger that it will be either used nefariously or misused to harm. It was and remains perfectly legitimate subject matter. Kurzweil in his discussion of the Singularity has made similar points in his books and you don't have to believe in the Singularity to understand the technological inertia he cites.
Most re
Facebook is setting new speed records ... (Score:1)
BACKPEDALING !!!!!!
Anyone who trusts the pieces of shit who own and run Facebook, is someone so stupid they should be prevented from breeding.
We all know the score now.
Smart people won't use Facebook any more ( if they ever did ) and stupid people WILL continue to use Facebook.
And the show goes on.
And that is why I don't use facebook (Score:1)
No more comments needed.
They are deluded (Score:1)
The lot of them, they are despicable.They are the most insular and straight up arrogant people currently in business, and the same applies to the majority of big tech companies. Stopping their 'influence' is as simple as not using their site or tools, the douches. This all should have been front and center ten years ago, long before even 2016. Better late than never.
They Trust Me. Dumb Fucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Which makes the comment rather circular considering it was Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
> What is an "SNS"?
I'd guess it's a typo for "SSN", i.e. Social Security Number.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I tried signing up (Score:1)
Any platform can be used for "the bad" (Score:2)
The point of Facebook *is* to "connect people". So is Twitter, so is the global telephone network and the Internet itself.You can't sue a telephone company for facilitating campaign calls that were headed by foreign operatives, can you? What about facilitating voice calls that coordinated an assassination? Facebook essentially is the same thing - a medium. It's hard for me to say it but I agree with Facebook. The fault lies in said operatives (and the users' gullibility, unfortunately) IMHO. Don't kill the
Re:Any platform can be used for "the bad" (Score:4, Insightful)
That may have been true when it started out, but it hasn't been for a long, long time. The whole point of Facebook now is to get more and more people to give them more and more personal information that they can sell to advertisers. That's how they make money and that's all that they really care about.
Re: (Score:3)
The point of Facebook *is* to "connect people"
Sorry . . . 100% wrong. The point of Facebook is to sell information about people.
They do bring people closer together . . . namely, they bring advertisers closer to their users.
But advertisers are mostly harmless. Other customers of Facebook data, are not . . . like the ones who want to know if you are pro-Hillary or pro-Trump, and will deny you a job based on your opinion about UBI.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree about the bad parts of their advertiser/"partner" strategy but I'm talking about the point of Facebook for users.
Devil's advocate (Score:2)
It's not an inherently bad sentiment. In fact, a few years ago everyone here were cheering Lavabit for practically the same message.
That said, context is everything. Since Facebook doesn't seem to care for their users beyond sticking them in a virtual approval bubble and selling their ad impressions, it's hard not to see this memo as anything but arrogant corporate greed regardless of the writer's intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope not, moving targets are harder to hit.
Insider leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
It's no secret that Facebook's various offenses and Zuckerberg's pretty damning responses to the blowback are troubling the Facebook eloi. One can only imagine how difficult it must be to concentrate on automating the liberal safe space [fb.com] they all dream of while navigating this ongoing shitstorm. They thought they were working on behalf of the most virtuous of all the virtue mongers in the Valley, but it turns out they're actually employed by a bunch of piratic shitheels.
Re: (Score:1)
The major scandal that broke is that Facebook (willingly) supported a rightwing data mining company, and yet all the conservative snowflakes can whine about is how oppressed they are.
Grow the fuck up.
Re: Insider leaks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
rightwing
Ah! The crime! Had Facebook simply taken care to avoid supporting wrongthinkers there would no headlines to squabble about.
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, grow the fuck up. You are acting as if a billion-dollar company, complicit in rightwing election tampering, is some sort of 'liberal' hate machine.
Go take your projection, and shove it up your arse.
They supported Obama in 2012 (Score:2)
> The major scandal that broke is that Facebook (willingly)
> supported a rightwing data mining company, and yet all the
> conservative snowflakes can whine about is how oppressed they are.
Carol Davidsen, Obama's digital campaign manager for 2012, about this at a TED TALK in 2015. The interesting part begins at 19 minutes into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
In her own words...
===
> but we were actually able to ingest the entire social network, social network
> of the US that's on Face
Re: (Score:1)
Oh gods, a tu quoque fallacy. And not even an original one, but a parroted talking point.
Is huffing paint until your brain dies a right-wing initiation ritual or something?
Facebook does not bring people closer (Score:5, Insightful)
We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year.
I've observed that social media in general has turned out to be better at dividing, isolating and siloing people than it is at unifying. I think social media is more about people talking than about listening. More about expressing one's one opinion than being enlightened by the opinions of others. More about people trying to distribute their ideas and beliefs and fears like tiny seeds on the winds of the internet. But those seeds fall on sterile, desiccated ground.
I don't think this is how social media wanted to be, just how it, or it's user base has evolved. Of course I reserve the right to be wrong. My Daytimer quote for the day is from Dean Rusk:
One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears -- by listening to them
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is the modern good-looking design gets in the way. One big reason I come back to slashdot is that this "NetNews" style of threaded discussion page is thoroughly out of fashion, and thus rarer and rarer.
Blog-style looks so much better. But the typical blog style also means that once the stream hits a certain volume, intricate back-and-forth between two viewpoints gets harder and harder to track.
Sure, I often fail to have an intelligent discussion here, but it does happen here more often
FB needs to get a visit from the FBI (Score:2)
It seems to miss that latter letter.
Re:FB needs to get a visit from the FBI (Score:4, Funny)
I can see it now.
FBI: "Hi guys, you're doing a bang-up job!"
FB: "Thanks!"
The end.
You can't critique a service that way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The price is too high, sorry.
First in line at the bus stop (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And you can rsquo;te me on that!
Way to miss the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, any technology can be used for good and bad. What can be used to find a self-help group of people suffering from the same rare disease you have can be used for fringe loonies looking for equally deranged individuals. But that is NOT the problem with Facebook.
Don't try to deflect the discussion now onto whether FB's effect on people is good or bad, hoping that someone will come and defend Facebook akin to "Facebook doesn't kill people, the Terrorists using it do, it's just like guns, ya see?". That isn't the problem with Facebook. The problem with Facebook is not how its users (ab)use it.
The problem is how its owners abuse its users.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no problem with Facebook.
The problem is a lack of data privacy laws that allows Facebook to be what it is--at least, the parts that we don't like about Facebook. Facebook knows everything about you and your connections even if you don't have a Facebook account, and it leaks that information.
Right now, nothing Facebook has done seems technically-illegal, and Congress is trying to find some way to bring a hammer down on them. We knew Facebook apps could access all of your data--it gives you a fr
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Way to miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)
The span of what you can do with personal data--even just what you can find around the 'net--is terrifying to contemplate. Now and then, when I spot somebody from whom I want to garner political support, I spend about 3 minutes hopping around Google and build a profile. Sometimes I get not much; other times I know everything about you, up to and including unearthing personal cell phone numbers for politicians and other high-profile folks.
Data privacy laws. We need them. I'll work out how to construct them eventually (I have to win an election first).
Re: (Score:2)
Work out how to construct them and make them part of your platform. I have a hunch that right now this could bring in some decent dollar from private citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't, but mostly because I'm bad at selling things. Working out how to construct data privacy laws isn't going to be a one-man weekend project, either; we need a special committee examining the data privacy laws in Europe, with lawyers and technology experts, with expert witness testimony, the lot.
We'll survive without these laws for any indefinite period of time. That gives us the opportunity to make this legislation an imperative, and to take the time necessary to do it right. It may tak
Re: (Score:2)
Just because what they do isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right. I know that the prevailing idea in the US (and increasingly in the rest of the world) is "if it ain't illegal I'm entitled to do it".
Yes. You won't get locked up for doing it. Ok. That does NOT mean that I have to like you or even that I must not hate you for doing it. Being legal doesn't make it right.
Just like being illegal doesn't make it wrong, by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because what they do isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right
It means doing it gives them a hell of a lot of power (money or control), and so if they didn't do it than someone else would. In this case, everybody is doing it; Facebook happens to have a lucky position.
Chastising Facebook for not voluntarily behaving is the weird sort of socialist idealism you get out of Republicans, where having no regulations and no rule of law will automatically produce well-behaved and upstanding Corporate citizens.
... "Facebook Could Get People Killed" (Score:2)
Apparently Zuckerberg didn't disagree (Score:3)
Apparently Zuckerberg didn't disagree with "All the questionable contact importing practices. All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends." because he kept those in place.
If the ends didn't justify the means, Zuckerberg still justified them, just with different rhetoric. The end result is still the same, just given a different name.
In related news ... (Score:3)
Et tu, Slashdot? (Score:2, Offtopic)
The logic of this ia that If we connect people they will interact; If they interact it can be good or bad; examples of good branch are they fall in love and feed the poor- examples of bad branch are they kill each other. Who is responsible?
The logic applies to Slashdot, Facebook, the NYT, every radio playlist... and you and I in our daily activities. I'm glad Facebook is at least thinking about it
So the tension is between those who believe the connecting agency is responsible and those who believe the
Remember when we lived in a democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
To all of you who thought Big Brother would come from "The Government": Surprise!
Here is where our free society dies...not with the bought-off corporate shills we elect, but far more directly. Even our damaged and fallible version of representative democracy is being rendered irrelevant by corporate executives who simply arrogate to themselves decisions about the kind of society we will have, and the acceptable costs of creating it.
This is what happens when a social or technological innovation allows some organization to gather and use power in a way that outstrips the ability of our democratic processes even to properly evaluate it, much less control it. So some unaccountable, unreachable corporate douchebag decides how many deaths will be an acceptable cost for implementing his personal vision of America. And what are the consequences for this kind of arrogant corporate over-reach? We just put an angry-face emoticon at the bottom of a 100-word comment, and fool ourselves into believing that's the extent of a citizen's duty in a democratic society.