Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmueckl | Hacker News Reader

So how comes that all these revelations come in such a quick succession after years of relative silence? What changed?

> What changed?

It's in the zeitgeist. The Cambridge Analytica scandal gave the public a tangible threat in Facebook's data promiscuity. At that point, the entire system is incentivized to dig deeper. Whistleblowers who previously wouldn't have thought of leaking start getting inquiries; legal teams ask for contracts to be re-assessed; Congressional staffers make calls; NGOs mobilize to start court cases, et cetera.

Similar to what happened post-Snowden in the E2E space.

I'm sort of hoping there is more of an effect this time around than there was from Snowden... what does "E2E" mean in this context?

After Snowden E2E encryption turned from an implementation detail into a feature. see whatsapp et al.

"End to end", encryption that is opaque to intermediate parties (ie email without GPG is not end to end because your mailserver can read your messages, even if the channel between you and your mailserver is encrypted).

Financial companies need a distraction from their massive leaks of data that you didn't voluntarily hand over to them?

I think you make an important point. The media got into a frenzy over Facebook and Cambridge Analytica and we continue to get reports on it, yet I haven't seen many follow ups on Equifax. This is despite that having your SSN, DOB, Address and Drivers License stolen has higher consequences for you than a political campaign having your Facebook data. Priorities are misaligned.

Oh, it’s even more compelling than that: Cambridge Analytica didn’t rely on Facebook data, but Axciom, Experian and Infogroup to target US voters.

This is a great point - one I wish the media, drunk on the prospect of shiny silicon valley companies falling from grace, would pay more attention too.

Maybe some internal employees are leaking the information?

If you're an employee with information about this project, and you see your CEO (say) pinky-swearing that they didn't share data at all, then you might be motivated to leak this information to a newspaper.

I suspect from details in the article that the leak is from the external parties, probably former employees of the external parties:

- Facebook employees would not call that number “friend link”: it has another name internally; “friend link” sounds like how you’d explain it to someone who’s not familiar with graph theory;

- the WSJ is anything but exacting, but the article is oddly vague on when the program was terminated. That sounds out-of-character, unless the source left since, and couldn’t confirm if the program was maintained.

I think traditional media companies were afraid of Facebook, now they aren't anymore. They are natural enemies. When they fight, there can be only winners from the customer POV.

The Groupthink and Normalization of Deviance that all of this is okay got broken out off - there will be more I'd say.

Things are being revealed, because people are now looking at Facebook's actions.

It seems like the waves of bad press began after FB refused Billionaire Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch's demands to share ad revenue. Murdoch began complaining of financial struggles in November [0] and has been leading the charge against FB ever since they rejected his proposal [1] [2].

M.A.D.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/16/rupert-murdoch...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/23...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/murdoch-s...

One reason could be that the media companies saw there is high interest from the readership on this issue = they put more journalists to investigate all the shady stuff Facebook may be doing.

It says right in this article:

>"The revelations come as Facebook is dealing with the fallout in March related to the use of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, a political analytics firm that aided President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign"

For some reason they thought spying on everyone would only help the democratic party I guess. Seems pretty blind to me...

The parenthetical is not a reason but just something added by the writer or editor.

Donald Trump got elected with the help of a foreign government utilizing Facebook and is now openly helping that government and spurning Western allies.

Up until that point Facebook was a place people could share cat videos and connect with okd friends, now that it has been revealed it can influence a democracy, it is getting more scrutiny.

True

Getting diaper ads because your profile says you fit the category that might have a baby is slightly creepy but ok.

But

Providing a platform for interfering in the governance of another country and denying it is infuriating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com