Mark Zuckerberg Leveraged Facebook User Data To Fight Rivals and Help Friends, Leaked Documents Show (nbcnews.com) 68
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered making deals with third-party developers just to help him find out how much users' data is worth, NBC News reported on Tuesday. The report, which cites 4,000 leaked pages of internal documents, shines a light on the way senior company executives viewed attaching a dollar sign to sensitive user data, despite Facebook's public commitment to protect such information.
From the report: In the same week, Zuckerberg floated the idea of pursuing 100 deals with developers "as a path to figuring out the real market value" of Facebook user data and then "setting a public rate" for developers. "The goal here wouldn't be the deals themselves, but that through the process of negotiating with them we'd learn what developers would actually pay (which might be different from what they'd say if we just asked them about the value), and then we'd be better informed on our path to set a public rate," Zuckerberg wrote in a chat. Facebook told NBC News that it was exploring ways to build a sustainable business, but ultimately decided not to go forward with these plans.
Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements. "I'm generally skeptical that there is as much data leak strategic risk as you think," he wrote in the email to Lessin. "I think we leak info to developers but I just can't think of any instances where that data has leaked from developer to developer and caused a real issue for us." The report also outlines how PR people at Facebook tries to spin things. An excerpt: In a March 2014 email discussing Zuckerberg's keynote speech at the event, where he was due to announce the removal of developers' access to friends' data, Jonny Thaw, a director of communications, wrote that it "may be a tough message for some developers as it may inhibit their growth." "So one idea that came up today was potentially talking in the keynote about some of the trust changes we're making on Facebook itself. So the message would be: 'trust is really important to us -- on Facebook, we're doing A, B and C to help people control and understand what they're sharing -- and with platform apps we're doing D, E and F.'" If that doesn't work, he added, "we could announce some of Facebook's trust initiatives in the run up to F8" to make the changes for developers "seem more natural."
Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements. "I'm generally skeptical that there is as much data leak strategic risk as you think," he wrote in the email to Lessin. "I think we leak info to developers but I just can't think of any instances where that data has leaked from developer to developer and caused a real issue for us." The report also outlines how PR people at Facebook tries to spin things. An excerpt: In a March 2014 email discussing Zuckerberg's keynote speech at the event, where he was due to announce the removal of developers' access to friends' data, Jonny Thaw, a director of communications, wrote that it "may be a tough message for some developers as it may inhibit their growth." "So one idea that came up today was potentially talking in the keynote about some of the trust changes we're making on Facebook itself. So the message would be: 'trust is really important to us -- on Facebook, we're doing A, B and C to help people control and understand what they're sharing -- and with platform apps we're doing D, E and F.'" If that doesn't work, he added, "we could announce some of Facebook's trust initiatives in the run up to F8" to make the changes for developers "seem more natural."
Non-story (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? These are product developmental things.
Facebook effectively created new territory on data management. Yes, they've done some unethical things, and they're careless in others. But that's not what this is about; this is about discussions and leaked emails.
"Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements."
Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're looking forward it can be difficult to determine where things go. This is his opinion prior t
Re: (Score:3)
"Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements."
Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're looking forward it can be difficult to determine where things go. This is his opinion prior to many of the recent Facebook scandals; he was wrong, but at that point in time it was anyone's guess what would happen.
Was it really anyone's guess? I think it was always pretty clear that selling user data collected without making it clear to users that it would be sold to whoever was willing to pay, was dirty at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
But really, what business is Facebook in? Is it some sort of secret?
It's perfectly possible to exploit user data for targeted advertising without selling / giving / leaking / whatever the data to anyone. That's Google's business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wasn't it clear? Here's an article by Carnegie Mellon in 2014 providing a condensed summary of Facebook's terms and conditions in the time period we're talking about
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we didn't know what Facebook was doing. The author of the post I replied to claimed that it wasn't clear back then whether the privacy risks Facebook chose to court were going to be unacceptable or not. My point is that I think it was always clear to lots of other people that the business model of collecting user data and outright selling it was going to provoke a backlash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many shithole privacy invasive media companies are there, fuck their freedom, governments should be all about protecting the privacy of the majority, not feeding the greed of a tiny minority. First they came for the social media companies, yeah, fantastic, couldn't happen soon enough, fry the fuckers. The easiest way to control real name social media companies is to make them fully legally and criminally liable for all posts, as they claim their sites to be works of fact, and promote that content of tho
Re:Non-storyYeah (Score:2)
Zuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not an ally? Israel is a hair away from being a US colony. Of course our policy of letting our colonies maintain independence for the sake of good PR has been backfiring. Look what the UK did? Since we are being cast as the bad guys we should probably go ahead and snatch them up officially.
One joker in the UK talked about the US military being much more powerful but taking forever to deploy... in a discussion about the US military bases in the UK. How long does it take to deploy when you are already there?
Re: (Score:3)
Israel is a US colony not a UK colony. The UK is also a US colony even if they've been given far too loose a leash.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly, the US created Israel at the end of WWII. We supply all their arms, we can disable their arms, we funnel intelligence data there from our domestic spying programs so we can request it back without warrants, we have them hold and torture suspects on our behalf and of course we also maintain military forces there.
The US could overthrow Israel in under 24hrs with the downside being that legally being part of the US would end some of the benefits I mentioned above and geopolitical outrage. The outrage d
Re: (Score:1)
Zuckerberg comes from a world where all is fair, as long as you have millions of people giving you free info about their lives that others will pay you for. Being that there are millions of those people on this planet, I think we were bound to produce a Zuckerberg eventually.
Sometimes I even think that his name is a hoax, "Zuckerberg". 'Zucker' as in 'sucker' and 'berg' as in mountain. As in 'A Mountain of Suckers" - which is what he must view The People as.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they don't. First there aren't really militant atheists in the sense you suggest. Atheists don't attack anyone, it isn't an attack to sweep faulty legs out from under your argument. Second most of what atheists are saying undermines all the faiths you mentioned, Christians just tend to see everything they say as being targeted at them. At least here in the US they are massive majority shove their beliefs into every aspect of everyone's life while pretending that preventing them from doing that is someh
Re: (Score:1)
Atheists don't attack anyone
You've got to be kidding. Atheists are among the most arrogant and condescending people in this entire world.
"The difference between a theist and an atheist is that atheists are cocky about knowing the unknowable."
Re: (Score:3)
Your user name is humorous in this context.
There are certainly "militant" atheists: evangelists who can't shut up about it. At least on the Christian side, somewhere around the turn of the millennium the "don't be an asshole for Jesus" movement happened, and strangers stopped "witnessing" to me. Sadly, at about that time atheists stepped into that space. These days both sides mostly keep their fighting on YouTube and forums, where I can ignore it, which is great.
Well... duh (Score:5, Insightful)
All this leak highlights is how unwitting the general populace is about what's done with the PII they put online.
I'm shocked...shocked I tell you! (Score:5, Informative)
Next, I suppose you're going to tell us that Zuckerberg made money off Facebook user data.
"...a real issue for us." (Score:1)
"...but I just can't think of any instances where that data has leaked from developer to developer and caused a real issue for us."
That's the key, it hasn't caused FB any issues, the hell with the people whose data it is.
So how DID you think FB was funded? (Score:3)
I think you start to realize the fiscal challenges as soon as you consider the idea of starting your own competitor to Facebook. I mean, take a look at your costs to hire a development team that works on the software itself, and find out what your annual costs will be for the bandwidth needed, for the physical servers and storage devices, etc. Now, assume you really ARE going to keep everyone's personal information secure and private on YOUR social media alternative -- so none of what they upload or key in is ever sold.
Are you still confident you can generate enough revenue selling some advertising space on your site to cover all those bills and actually turn a profit?
I sure wouldn't be.
Two things are probably true (Score:4, Insightful)
1) There is a movement against Zuckerberg within facebook, probably led by some of its board and influenced by outside activist shareholders. Mark is unusual in the sense that facebook is still a very much found led company he has a lot of control. The investor class hates that. They don't want ones mans vision, politicking, vanity, etc screwing up their cash cow. They want nice safe committee driven decisions.. So they are probably digging up any dirt they can find and blowing up every little off the cuff bit spitballing Mark ever did they think won't play well with the media and running with it.
2) Zuckerberg does operate with the same moral compass you and i likely do. He clearly isn't burdened with sense of fair play and he does not care about the integrity of his own word. Mark will quite ruthlessly do what seems good for Mark at the time. The thing that people like Mark don't get is that behavior in itself is exploitable. It leaves you without a lot of friends ultimately and no matter how quick and clever you are when enough people have it out for you can't defend yourself without help; because nobody is at the top of their game 24x7x365
Re:Two things are probably true (Score:4, Informative)
"Why did you sting me? We'll both drown!"
The more we learn about Facebook... (Score:2)
Dumb Fucks according to him (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.esquire.com/uk/lat... [esquire.com]
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
Re: (Score:2)
disclaimer - I was on FB for awhile but always fabricated a few key details (DOB, city). Social media free now for 4 years and feeling better and better about it daily.
Shocking (Score:2)
See title.
Obligatory (Score:2)
"We're sorry." (No, we're only sorry we got caught)
and
"We'll try to do better." (No, we'll try hide it better in order to not get caught next time)
-Miser