• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

News related stuff that doesn't really deserve it's own thread

StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...acebook-cambridge-analytica-statement/556187/

I have not commented on this much.... but I am finding the rhetoric against FB a bit much. Google is much worse imo. I can understand why people are upset, I just don't think they have a right to be. If this was some government organization that had demanded information and then sold it, then yes get upset. But this is a private company that you choose to join or not and then surprised that the personal data given to the company on a 'social' media platform is then used and sold by that company? Of course there is an level of insidiousness to this all; but really are people really surprised and upset when you have happily handed out details of your personal life to a private 3rd party for 'fun' and expect them to just not doing anything with that info?

Of course their is bigger things at play with regards to the internet, privacy issues... but don't get upset that once you handed info over willingly, that it then gets used.

Added: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/its-time-to-regulate-the-internet/556097/
 
Last edited:
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Well-known member
As an exercise, how big of a monthly/annual fee would Facebook have to charge individual users to maintain its current and future valuation goals? In return of not selling their data and maybe even ceasing all ads and sponsored content etc.
 
Last edited:
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
harsh.ag said:
As an exercise, how big of a monthly/annual fee would Facebook have to charge individual users to maintain its current and future valuation goals? In return of not selling their data and maybe even ceasing all ads and sponsored content etc.
Click to expand...
They currently have about $40b-$50b in revenue I think, so in order to spend similar amounts of money they would have to charge quite a substantial amount to replace that with mostly subscription fees, particularly given that a huge chunk of the userbase doesn't live in rich Western countries where doing that sort of thing is both logistically and financially straightforward.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
theconversation_facebook-is-killing-democracy-with-its-personality-profiling-data

I don't disagree with the premise of what is being said here.... but people have been warned, people are explained the dangers, people go ahead and still do it and then surprised when it happens. Where is the personal responsibilities of their own actions?

And what will happen is that people will get upset, government will create some laws and then it will just carry on as it always has.... people don't want to be 'nanny stated' but then demand to be 'nanny stated'?
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Well-known member
I think you're right that the reaction feels disproportionate in the context of 10+ years in which people didn't seem to care what happened to their data at all. Public outrage seems to work this way generally- a long period of underreaction followed by sudden overreaction.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Well-known member
harsh.ag said:
Pretty sure this has something to do with putting Zuck in his place by political Elders too.
Click to expand...
I don't see a political angle here, but Zuck's no-holds-barred approach to growing Facebook left a trail of enemies in influential places.

Also, let's not overanalyse it: people have a gut reaction against him. Incredibly punchable face.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Well-known member
Uppercut said:
I don't see a political angle here, but Zuck's no-holds-barred approach to growing Facebook left a trail of enemies in influential places.

Also, let's not overanalyse it: people have a gut reaction against him. Incredibly punchable face.
Click to expand...
I really don't think so. This is definitely at least partly engineered. By whom and why is debatable.

Anyways, not something I disagree with as such. Went off FB a while ago.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Well-known member
It traces back to the Guardian running a story on the CA whistleblower, which is 100% standard Guardian. Might as well say a turd that a bear dropped in the woods was at least partly engineered by politicians.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Well-known member
Uppercut said:
It traces back to the Guardian running a story on the CA whistleblower, which is 100% standard Guardian. Might as well say a turd that a bear dropped in the woods was at least partly engineered by politicians.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a story here. Not saying otherwise. But the firestorm of the past few days, in some quarters against Zuck personally, has more to it than meets the eye.
 
Redbacks

Redbacks

Well-known member
It's because it's claimed to have helped the Trump campaign.

Imagine if counter factual occurred, that they had used the data to 'engineer a Hillary win' the media wouldn't care and Zuck would be a 'hero'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top