I've been trying to warn folk off of Facebook for some time now. but It's to no avail, they are all hooked on it. :(
UK lawmakers have threatened to have Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg dragged kicking and screaming to Parliament if he doesn't attend a hearing about the social media giant's dodgy practices in the next month. In a letter [PDF] sent on Tuesday to the head of public policy for Facebook's UK office, Rebecca Stimson, the head of a …
True, although none of my direct family uses Facebook - my step-daughters deleted their accounts about 4 years ago.
I had to have an account at my previous employer, but I only used it to control the corporate account. I have since deleted it again.
To be honest, real life is so hectic, I never really found time to use FB anyway - when I was at my most active, excluding work posts, I'd browse maybe for 15 minutes once a month. So I don't really miss it at all.
I was lucky this time. I have no interest in other people's lives(*) and assumed that they felt the same way about me so Facebook, Twitter and all that social media crap has passed me by :)
(*)Frankly it's bad enough I have to share a planet with you lot, don't ask me to take an interest as well :)
I occasionally make the effort to try and be interested when someone suggests I look at something on their faecbook feed. Then they try to find it. Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "it's very funny". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "it's here somewhere". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll "you'll like it I'm sure". Scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll.......
By which time I've gone to the pub to talk to some friends that actually exist.
Rupert Murdoch and moral high ground in the same sentence. LOL.
He's the foreigner who influences UK elections through his media activities and that's really bad, isn't it? Or was that Putin? Which one is illegal again? Or should be?
It's all so confusing in this post truth era...
"If they don't like what Facebook does - make it illegal."
It looks to me like they're investigating whether or not Facebook broke laws that already exist.
"If Facebook has does something illegal, extradite / arrest those suspected of criminal actions.
You don't want to live in a world where those are the only two available options. You really don't.
> You don't want to live in a world where those are the only two available options. You really don't.
The rule of law. The current laws govern what is allowed and unless you break those laws, moral or not, you are free to continue doing what you do. If society/government determines that they would prefer something doesn't happen, then campaign for and pass enforceable laws, preferably reasonably well thought through ones, to achieve that purpose. Bit of extra frippery around the edges on extradition, separation of state and justice, personal freedoms, etc.
Otherwise, KRFFC (Kindly Refrain From Further Comment; it's a bit more polite).
Indeed. The British politicians aren't doing it for the good of their constituents.
If they really wanted make a difference, they could bring in laws to tax these multinationals at appropriate levels. But apparently, it's all too difficult. Must be even more difficult than Brexit.
Still, anyone can publicly ridicule a CEO in a kangaroo court, if that's what the mob is baying for. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Why the actual fuck should I have to try and do the above to stop Zuckerberg stalking me on the Intertubes outside of his Social Network? I haven't joined it. I don't visit it. So he can Fuck Off.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... Use Firefox loaded with NoScript, U-Block Origin and Privacy Badger. Problem is that the rest of the Plebs are not as clever as like what we Commentards are. No offence intended. That's just the way it is.
I've said it before and I will say it again. It would be much easier for me and the Plebs if my ISP provider added a "Block FaceBook" check box to my Gubberment Mandated Pron Page. They already have a 'homework option'.
Perhaps, if possible, the choice to block completely or block outside of FaceBook 'property'... just in case the Plebs might suffer withdrawal symptoms.
At least some good might come from Claire Perry's Fuck Whittery and the Daily Mail can, once again, claim that 'It Wuz Us Who Wun It!!!'
For existing Facebook users, test using 'Download your Data'.
Facebook recently added beacon images into the download (sneaky). Check those against the Hosts file above. For example, mine are not blocked by this list. Which is also the problem here.
Hosts file lists etc, need to be updated regularly, just like legislation. Otherwise we're all playing catch-up with an enemy that is faster and nimbler than you or I can ever be:
Shorter list (ok taken out some of the CDN servers) :
Add those to your ublock domain filter file, though it will nuke access to FB & Instagram's front end sites too. Not that it really bothers me that much!
You can be part of the sheeple herd and get your Internet services for free in blissful ignorance, or you can pay someone to offer you the service only, or you can be a bit more informed about the choices and either decide you don't care or decide you do with FF/NS/PB/uBO or VPN or containers (or all of the above).
There's simply no point railing at Facebook specifically unless and until they've actually broken an enforceable law/regulation - they will do what they can within and ahead of the regulations to make as much money as they can for their shareholders. Just like 99% of all the other businesses out there. Get the regulation sorted to protect basic rights and country structures (like elections), and let businesses make money from the assorted plebs.
I'll bet money that even if the regulations say everything must be informed consent with opt-in that 90%+ would just opt-in when the choice is 'Opt in or pay'.
...Yes. For some reason the Red Queen comes to mind here....
Which Red Queen? Are we talking about the one in 'Looking Glass'? Or Jasper fforde's version?
There are many other options.... but I would prefer the Queen of Hearts in 'Wonderland' - "Off with his head!!"...
Actually the little cretin is, as you so eloquently put it "under the Norman yoke" - since arsebook and associated companies operate in the entire area claimed by that former state. including parts of France, Italy, the entirety of England amongst others. personally I'd favour the "red hot spike up the bottom" approach - or the hanging drawing quartering approach - or from our Chinese friends "the ninth degree" which would have the added advantage of wiping out every Facebook staffer on the planet - although it'd probably be a bit messy.
I've got precisely zero problem with the little turd enjoying the Anne Boleyn experience in full with his entire family "lest the evil persist".
incidentally if you know anyone with the surname Bullen - there's a good chance they're related to Anne - the family slightly adjusted the name after her Tudor haircut.
incidentally if you know anyone with the surname Bullen - there's a good chance they're related to Anne - the family slightly adjusted the name after her Tudor haircut.
Oh, I see a pun to be had there. Descendants of Anne Boleyn: Heir today, gone tomorrow.
Well..I didn't say it was a good pun.
with the surname Bullen
ObInterestingFact: A lot of the surnames that start with 'P' are of Welsh origin. The tales goes that a recently-appointed English magistrate who had been foisted on the Welsh soon got tired of their genealogies and decreed that, from henceforth, only one level would be allowed in his court. So "Iuan Ap Arri ap Iuan ap Iwan" (and so forth)... became Iuan Ap Arri. Which, over time, mutated to Iuan Parry.
 Which, to quote the MMQB, may be of interest only to me.
 And not in the Bob sense.
 Wales, like the Scandanavian countries and the Gaidhlig areas of Scotland, didn't use surnames. Rather, people would be classified by their genealogies - So I would be Anndra mac Phol (ans a'Ghaidlig)
 But not in the Welsh sense. Croeso i Gymru and all that.. Cornish and Breton do similarly. The P-Celtic languages do mutate (mor becomes mhor for example - which changes the sound since a mv is a 'v' sound) but not to the same extent.
His company is subject to said yoke, and is known to have broken the law of the land.
The committee can direct the DoP to prosecute for these breaches of the DPA, and next month can direct the DoP to bankrupt Facebook Inc. 4% global revenue done four or five times...
The UK also has the power to detain any foreign national visiting any part of the UK or Territories, just like the USA does. The UK just doesn't use that power as often as the USA.
subject to the Norman Yoke
That hasn't been true since about the late 1400's..
(The Tudors are classed as Anglo/Welsh and had very few legitimate links to either the Angevins or the preceding Norman dynasties. And English had been the Court language for a century or two by that point..)
...Facebook seems to share a similar disdain of Collins and the committee: it has repeatedly stonewalled questions and Zuckerberg has not once but twice refused to attend its hearings.
It doesn't help either that soon after the committee quizzed Facebook exec Simon Milner in February, during which he claimed that dodgy data outfit Cambridge Analytica did not have Facebook data, it emerged that it did in fact have Facebook data – on millions of people....
So... politicians constantly stonewall and lie to the electorate - refuse to set up inquiries or fiddle the Terms of Reference so that they do not address the main issues. And then whitewash themselves afterwards.
Why should they be surprised when companies do the same to them? It sounds as if they can deal it out to the little people, but they can't take it themselves....
oh dear, this is going to ruin his regular holiday plans!
Anyway, methinks they're just huffing and puffing and twitting and facebooking, and soon enough they'll move on to the next point on their agenda. That said, it'd be fun to have James Bond go after Mark Z. Perhaps James might be furnished with an Israeli passport, in a tit for tat, eh?
Well if you are going to be picky about words, you can't be summonsed to a hearing if you are outside the jurisdiction of the body doing the summonsing.
Personally, I don't see why the politicians (on either side of the pond) don't *prefer* to speak to a lackey who actually knows rather more about how the business is run. Insisting on speaking to the figurehead is a bit like advertising that the session is all form and no substance. A bit like shouting "Hey! Look at us! We're a bunch of vacuous airheads." and expecting respect in return.
"We allowed Facebook to become to big to fail."
Facebook is certainly not "too big to fail". That phrase means that the consequences to the general public of a business failure is so unacceptable that the business must be propped up by the public to prevent it.
Facebook is not that. If it went away tomorrow, the public would generally be just fine. Probably better.
"your laws start and end at Dover "
And here was me thinking that they started at Lands End and ended at John o' Groats, and included any internet facing hardware in between. Now I find that the Westminster parliament is actually just Dover Town Council on vacation. Oh well, at least I found out before the elections tomorrow.
Social media megacorp Meta is the target of a class action suit which claims potentially thousands of medical details of hospital patients were shared with its Facebook brand.
The proposed class action [PDF], filed on Friday, centers on the use of Facebook Pixel, a tool for website marketing and analytics.
An anonymous hospital patient, named John Doe in court papers, is bringing the case — filed in the Northern District of California — alleging Facebook has received patient data from at least 664 hospital systems or medical providers, per the suit.
Judges in the UK have dismissed the majority of an appeal made by Facebook parent Meta to overturn a watchdog's decision to order the social media giant to sell Giphy for antitrust reasons.
Facebook acquired GIF-sharing biz Giphy in May 2020. But Blighty's Competition Markets Authority (CMA) wasn't happy with the $400 million deal, arguing it gave Mark Zuckerberg's empire way too much control over the distribution of a lot of GIFs. After the CMA launched an official probe investigating the acquisition last June, it ordered Meta to sell Giphy to prevent Facebook from potentially monopolizing access to the animated images.
Meta appealed the decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), arguing six grounds. All but one of them – known as Ground 4 – were dismissed by the tribunal's judges this week. And even then only one part of Ground 4 was upheld: the second element.
Opinion Consulting giant McKinsey & Company has been playing a round of MythBusters: Metaverse Edition.
Though its origins lie in the 1992 sci-fi novel Snow Crash, the metaverse has been heavily talked about in business circles as if it's a real thing over the last year or so, peaking with Facebook's Earth-shattering rebrand to Meta in October 2021.
The metaverse, in all but name, is already here and has been for some time in the realm of online video games. However, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's vision of it is not.
Facebook owner Meta's pivot to the metaverse is drawing significant amounts of resources: not just billions in case, but time. The tech giant has demonstrated some prototype virtual-reality headsets that aren't close to shipping and highlight some of the challenges that must be overcome.
The metaverse is CEO Mark Zuckerberg's grand idea of connected virtual worlds in which people can interact, play, shop, and work. For instance, inhabitants will be able to create avatars to represent themselves, wearing clothes bought using actual money – with designer gear going for five figures.
Apropos of nothing, Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg is leaving the biz.
Facebook parent Meta has settled a complaint brought by the US government, which alleged the internet giant's machine-learning algorithms broke the law by blocking certain users from seeing online real-estate adverts based on their nationality, race, religion, sex, and marital status.
Specifically, Meta violated America's Fair Housing Act, which protects people looking to buy or rent properties from discrimination, it was claimed; it is illegal for homeowners to refuse to sell or rent their houses or advertise homes to specific demographics, and to evict tenants based on their demographics.
This week, prosecutors sued Meta in New York City, alleging the mega-corp's algorithms discriminated against users on Facebook by unfairly targeting people with housing ads based on their "race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin."
An ongoing phishing campaign targeting Facebook users may have already netted hundreds of millions of credentials and a claimed $59 million, and it's only getting bigger.
Identified by security researchers at phishing prevention company Pixm in late 2021, the campaign has only been running since the final quarter of last year, but has already proven incredibly successful. Just one landing page - out of around 400 Pixm found - got 2.7 million visitors in 2021, and has already tricked 8.5 million viewers into visiting it in 2022.
The flow of this phishing campaign isn't unique: Like many others targeting users on social media, the attack comes as a link sent via DM from a compromised account. That link performs a series of redirects, often through malvertising pages to rack up views and clicks, ultimately landing on a fake Facebook login page. That page, in turn, takes the victim to advert landing pages that generate additional revenue for the campaign's organizers.
Cambridge Analytica is back to haunt Mark Zuckerberg: Washington DC's Attorney General filed a lawsuit today directly accusing the Meta CEO of personal involvement in the abuses that led to the data-slurping scandal.
DC AG Karl Racine filed [PDF] the civil suit on Monday morning, saying his office's investigations found ample evidence Zuck could be held responsible for that 2018 cluster-fsck. For those who've put it out of mind, UK-based Cambridge Analytica harvested tens of millions of people's info via a third-party Facebook app, revealing a – at best – somewhat slipshod handling of netizens' privacy by the US tech giant.
That year, Racine sued Facebook, claiming the social network was well aware of the analytics firm's antics yet failed to do anything meaningful until the data harvesting was covered by mainstream media. Facebook repeatedly stymied document production attempts, Racine claimed, and the paperwork it eventually handed over painted a trail he said led directly to Zuck.
Meta's ad transparency tools will soon reveal another treasure trove of data: advertiser targeting choices for political, election-related, and social issue spots.
Meta said it plans to add the targeting data into its Facebook Open Research and Transparency (FORT) environment for academic researchers at the end of May.
The move comes a day after Meta's reputation as a bad data custodian resurfaced with news of a lawsuit filed in Washington DC against CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Yesterday's filing alleges Zuckerberg built a company culture of mishandling data, leading directly to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The suit seeks to hold Zuckerberg responsible for the incident, which saw millions of users' data harvested and used to influence the 2016 US presidential election.
A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has proposed legislation that would likely force Alphabet's Google, Meta's Facebook, and Amazon to divest portions of their ad businesses.
The bill, called the Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act (CTDA), was introduced on Thursday by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), with the participation of Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).
The bill would prevent large ad companies from participating on different sides of the ad transaction chain. Large ad firms could operate supply-side brokers selling publisher ad space, demand-side brokers selling ads, or ad exchanges connecting buyers and sellers – but not more than one of these.
At Meta's first Conversations keynote yesterday, the company announced the WhatsApp Cloud API, aimed at improving the customer service experience for businesses of all sizes.
Meta already has the WhatsApp Business API, the first revenue-generating enterprise product for the otherwise free messaging app, where companies pay WhatsApp on a per-message basis and can use the platform to direct customer communications to other lines like SMS, email, other apps, and more.
It's basically another online presence where enterprises can set up shop to make it easier for customers to get in touch. But the WhatsApp Business API is on-premises and would normally need a solutions provider like Twilio to facilitate back-end integration.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022