Came here to ask just this. Even if the journalist/contractor were being as sloppy as possible with netsec, HTTPS would protect traffic between browser and Google's servers. But I'm guessing a place like Facebook would have proxy servers that could be inspecting the traffic if it were done at work? But if the employee took screenshots and waited until they were home to send them, he'd be OK, right? The article says he did this from his personal laptop:
> So when Zuckerberg’s admonition circulated, a young contract employee named Benjamin Fearnow decided it might be newsworthy. He took a screenshot on his personal laptop and sent the image to a friend named Michael Nuñez, who worked at the tech-news site Gizmodo. Nuñez promptly published a brief story about Zuckerberg’s memo.
You're thinking too much into it. They might just record the screen every few seconds and save it to their servers. There's software that does this easily.
The story isn't completely specific on the chain of events, i.e. the sending of the screenshot on his personal laptop may have been done in addition to using GChat at work. But if he indeed was using his personal laptop at work (as many contractors do, though I can't speak for what it's like at Facebook), how is screen-recording software simpler than a proxy server? Aren't proxy servers used by corporate IT to screen incoming/outgoing traffic for possible malware?
I feel like things went the wrong way with "Black Lives Matter". We were just on the crux of a "Police Accountability Matters" movement and then things went a different direction.
The same people that say "all lives matter" would be saying "You're undermining our cops therefore putting them in danger. You're literally getting cops killed."
The reason why the "all lives matter" people exist isn't because they're honestly misinterpreting the "black lives matter" message. They're dishonestly misinterpreting it. If you worded it differently they would find a different way to dishonestly misinterpret it.
I think this article hints at what may have been one of the causes of that change in direction. It appears that Russia faked black radical activism in social media in order to intentionally sow division in the US. But that action plays into the larger current political climate where it's "either you're with us or against us" by default rather than "even if we don't agree on everything, let's make progress where we do agree."
> I really really dislike those "all lives matter" people.
You understand, that this is precisely the intent. I think the "all lives matter" was a great move by a political group to use another group's ideology against themselves. ("Do all lives no matter, only black lives matter? But you can't explain the motive behind "black lives matter" without losing the narrative).
Similarly even more genius move was "It's ok to be white". If you show outrage against that statement, you lose the narrative very quickly.
Take another example, body positivity activists talk about how magazine and women should depict "real women" instead of photoshopped models. Now lets just say the same group which came up with "All Lives Matter" and "It's ok to be white" comes up with a campaign "This is what a normal woman looks like" (in response to "This is what a real woman looks like"), and they post skinny-ish women in response. This is bound to piss off a lot of people in the outrage movement.
The question this raises is why is it so easy for you or others to get pissed off so easily with these simple, yet technically true slogans, and are they right about something?
"All Lives Matter" is simply a parody movement (albeit more serious) similar to "Harambe" meme, which was created in a response to the Internet petition culture and hashtag movements.
This might be parody or a game to you, but for people feeling opressed this is no joke. If you think this is "genius", that provoking people is a game, if you feel a rush when saying or implying taboos, then you're part of the problem.
> This might be parody or a game to you, but for people feeling opressed this is no joke. If you think this is "genius", that being outrageous is a game, then you're part of the problem.
And what makes you think I have no say in how "my problems" are being dealt with white knights like you?
Or a more interesting question, why are you presuming literally anything about me? Is it because I spoke against the narrative?
> why are you presuming literally anything about me?
Saying that "all lives matter" is genius says a lot about you. Also using the expression "white knight" says the same things about you. So it's not that I'm "presuming" anything, you told me things about you.
But tell me more about your problems. I would genuinely like to hear what problems you have that you're dealing with by telling people that "all lives matter".
Come on, tell me your problems snowflake. Must be awful when you're trying to play victim and someone else steals he spotlight by claiming that their lives matter. Damn those minorities, they have it so easy to be victims!
I think I've finally nailed the essence of "all lives matter" people. They're just people who are upset because they're losing the victimization olympics. What an amazing insight.
"Black Lives Matter" is short for "Black Lives Also Matter, But You Wouldn't Know It Because Many People Behave As If They Do Not Matter As Much As The Lives of White People"
That is why "all lives matter" is a sarcastic, stupid thing to say in reply.
I wrote a longish response to the GP thread precisely so that it doesn't create confusion, but all I am getting is "But it's stupid to say All Lives Matter".
The GP commenter is straight up giving me a privilege check, would anyone actually read what I said?
Hmmm "One current employee asked that a WIRED reporter turn off his phone so the company would have a harder time tracking whether it had been near the phones of anyone from Facebook."
I don't know how the details of this is done. However, you should assume that every piece of that that the Facebook app has access to, it will relay back to HQ. It will be stored and correlated with other datapoints that they have of you. They will know who you encounter as you go about your day.
I'm super surprised that they haven't made a dating app out of this.
Lots of FB employees on HN. I take it they realize the importance of HN for recruitment purposes, if you can choose between Google and Facebook which you would choose might depend on what you read here. Not that that should even be a close decision.
Relevant story from 2016: the NYT profiled Fearnow, the contractor who was fired for apparently leaking some screenshots to Gizmodo (but not for the story about FB's bias in curation):
You can't fix something that is specifically designed to get the maximum information from people. However if by fix they mean make it even sneakier about how it gathers personal information then I guess fixed it is.
> You can't fix something that is specifically designed to get the maximum information from people.
You can simply not participate. That's the quickest fix. FB would be out of business tomorrow morning if people realized what a thoroughly bad company this is.
35 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 80.6 ms ] threadThe question still remains...
I would like to know more about this.
> So when Zuckerberg’s admonition circulated, a young contract employee named Benjamin Fearnow decided it might be newsworthy. He took a screenshot on his personal laptop and sent the image to a friend named Michael Nuñez, who worked at the tech-news site Gizmodo. Nuñez promptly published a brief story about Zuckerberg’s memo.
https://gsuite.google.com
But it has a very bad smell about it. Rather like a brown shirt.
I really really dislike those "all lives matter" people.
The reason why the "all lives matter" people exist isn't because they're honestly misinterpreting the "black lives matter" message. They're dishonestly misinterpreting it. If you worded it differently they would find a different way to dishonestly misinterpret it.
I think there's a middle ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
You understand, that this is precisely the intent. I think the "all lives matter" was a great move by a political group to use another group's ideology against themselves. ("Do all lives no matter, only black lives matter? But you can't explain the motive behind "black lives matter" without losing the narrative).
Similarly even more genius move was "It's ok to be white". If you show outrage against that statement, you lose the narrative very quickly.
Take another example, body positivity activists talk about how magazine and women should depict "real women" instead of photoshopped models. Now lets just say the same group which came up with "All Lives Matter" and "It's ok to be white" comes up with a campaign "This is what a normal woman looks like" (in response to "This is what a real woman looks like"), and they post skinny-ish women in response. This is bound to piss off a lot of people in the outrage movement.
The question this raises is why is it so easy for you or others to get pissed off so easily with these simple, yet technically true slogans, and are they right about something?
"All Lives Matter" is simply a parody movement (albeit more serious) similar to "Harambe" meme, which was created in a response to the Internet petition culture and hashtag movements.
And what makes you think I have no say in how "my problems" are being dealt with white knights like you?
Or a more interesting question, why are you presuming literally anything about me? Is it because I spoke against the narrative?
Saying that "all lives matter" is genius says a lot about you. Also using the expression "white knight" says the same things about you. So it's not that I'm "presuming" anything, you told me things about you.
But tell me more about your problems. I would genuinely like to hear what problems you have that you're dealing with by telling people that "all lives matter".
Go somewhere else man, we don't need that on HN.
I think I've finally nailed the essence of "all lives matter" people. They're just people who are upset because they're losing the victimization olympics. What an amazing insight.
That is why "all lives matter" is a sarcastic, stupid thing to say in reply.
The GP commenter is straight up giving me a privilege check, would anyone actually read what I said?
I'm super surprised that they haven't made a dating app out of this.
@dang, this is a brilliant piece of journalism. Any way to give it more traction on the HN home page?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/technology/facebook-trend...
You can simply not participate. That's the quickest fix. FB would be out of business tomorrow morning if people realized what a thoroughly bad company this is.