Updated 3rd April 2018
But what does it all say about the “real name” policy both Facebook and Google+ have insisted is necessary to keep what are seemingly now called “bad actors” off the social networks? Was it really necessary or more just a desire for you to give ad marketing an insight into what you might like and should be shown?
Ms. Wellens, who is 65, put 1910 as her birth year with the idea that advertisers don’t tend to bother with people more than 90 years old. The result? She sees a lot of ads for slippers.
As I guess you would.
“They won’‘t find out anything very useful about me,” says Ms. Wellens, the co-founder and chief executive of California-based computer networking company IWL. After news of the Facebook incident, “that was my first thought. If my data has been breached, I’ve now polluted another database.”
I must admit I’ve polluted a lot myself over the years and beyond age, real names a no-no for me too.
Mike Denison, a British security analyst, once received a wedding invitation addressed to “Mike Denisaurus”—a Facebook pseudonym he chose years ago when he was a university teaching assistant trying to avoid friend requests from students.
Indeed, feeling time to remind all Gladstone-Tibbs is not my real name.
But of course, going beyond the deliberate fingers up advertisers, other reasons why people lie are more of desire for the blowing of own trumpet that has always been a part of social media—as well as social network AFK or phone/tablet screen—and although it came as a shock a few years back for LinkedIn to discover its “professional networking” was indeed greatly helping fake degree mills (vice.com, Oct. 2015), the “social networking” on F’book seemingly suggests honours degrees are two-a-penny on a friends list along with the word “professional” placed before all sorts of marketers and designers.
Updated 4th April 2018
And the scandal still flowing for Zuck like the worse sort of diarrhea, with him presumably getting targeted adverts for all sorts of snake oil and corks:
Facebook says Cambridge Analytica may have gained 37m more users’ data (theguardian.com).
Bringing the total to 87 million.
This larger figure was buried in the penultimate paragraph of a blogpost by the company’s chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer, published on Wednesday, which also provided updates on the changes Facebook was making to better protect user information.
Buried in sand of the “penultimate paragraph” but seemingly with Zuck’s bare white ass waving in the wind—with cork inserted we hope:
When asked if anyone had been fired over the data scandal, the CEO replied: “I started this place, I run it, I’m responsible for what happens here. I’m going to do the best job I can going forward. I’m not looking to throw anyone under the bus for mistakes I’ve made.’
With suggestions of a coup having already been raised and waving like a magic revenue wand above his white ass waving in the wind stymied by said cork:
“He’s not accountable to anybody,” he added, noting that Zuckerberg controls about 60 percent of the stock.
Well, as he said himself, “I run it, I’m responsible for what happens here”—at least until:
Facebook’s Zuckerberg to testify before US committee (bbc.co.uk).
[Committee chairman Greg Walden and member Frank Pallone] said last month that they wanted to hear directly from Mr Zuckerberg after senior Facebook executives failed to answer questions during a private briefing with congressional staff about how Facebook and third-party developers use and protect consumer data.
So lots of lip pouting to be practiced in the mirror before testifying before the committee on 11th April. Meanwhile, F’book users shrugged shoulders more concerned on their feed with whether they would eat a chocolate whopper (whatstrending.com).
Updated 8th April 2018
Three weeks after Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica, a UK-based political data analysis firm the social network said improperly received as many as 87 million user profiles leaked from its service, Facebook has made a second high-profile move. This time, the target was AggregateIQ, a Canadian advertising and analysis firm that whistleblower Christopher Wylie from Cambridge Analytica said was linked to the same parent company, called SCL.
Indeed, you may have thought the “shell company” of Cambridge Analytica the whistleblower had worked for (Page 2) would have been banned at the same time for seemingly being up to no good, but there you go.
But as to whether the data collection business model can survive—and not just limited to F’book:
Data scandal puts Facebook’s business on trial (thehill.com).
“The problem right now is people are just beginning to understand the amount of personal data that the Facebooks and Googles and Amazons are gathering about us,” [John Simpson, who runs the privacy and technology program at Consumer Watchdog] said. “The whole business model is designed to not be explicit about what they’re gathering on you and what they’re going to do with it.”
Indeed, but then again concerns about Google ad revenue invasions of privacy has been around for a few years now with no particular reduction in useage, and it’s closest—and pretty much only rival—Bing has less than a 20% search market share, and having seen—and satirised—some of the snake oil they are happy to show on their MSN portal (Latest Picks 12th May 2016) I’m not at all sure they are or would be much better if they get the chance.
But on F’book the concern is that Dunkin’ Donuts introduced Donut Fries—but only in Boston, dammit! (whatstrending.com).
Updated 9th April 2018
And so today’s the day if you will find out if you were one of the ones that had F’book allow data analysts to play virtual pinball with your data:
Facebook to contact 87 million users affected by data breach (theguardian.com).
The firm said affected users would receive a detailed message on their news feeds. The majority of those whose information was shared with the data analytics firm—about 70 million—are in the US.
More than 1 million people in each of the UK, Philippines and Indonesia may also have had their personal information harvested as well as 310,000 Australian Facebook users.
Along with a notice titled “Protecting Your Information” with a link allowing a peek at what information is currently being shared with what apps which they can then turn off or, indeed, take no notice of and watch Catholic Church delivering Blessed Sacrament from a drone (whatstrending.com) on their feed instead.
Updated 10th April 2018
And with those notifications out F’bookers not more interested in discovering they are not the only ones telling tall tales about drinking Mountain Dew only to find a dead mouse in the can (whatstrending.com), no matter how buried in details it was, their private inbox messages were harvested too—and they gave permission by not reading the small print:
Facebook slipped this previously undisclosed detail into the notifications that began appearing at the top of News Feeds on Monday. These alerts let users know whether they or their friends had downloaded a personality quiz app called This Is Your Digital Life, which would have caused their data to be collected and potentially passed on to Cambridge Analytica.
Oh dear; so even if you hadn’t done the stupid quiz, if one of your “friends” lurking their unknown to make up the numbers had.
Unlike the collection of specific user friend information, which Facebook says it phased out in April 2015 unless both people had downloaded the same app, the read_mailbox permission didn’t fully deprecate until that October.
Indeed, and there’s likely a bot at least having a jolly good laugh at what you were describing yourself doing in said private messages.
And with it being the day of day of reckoning with lots of mirror-practiced pouty lip for Zuck:
‘I’m sorry:’ Zuckerberg opens Senate hearing with an apology (washingtonpost.com).
“We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake,” he said. “It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”
The “we” quickly giving way to “I” in Zuck’s case perhaps because he is indeed trying to manly shoulder the blame as opposed to the “we” that quickly turns into “I” of many marketers, designers and organisations of all-sorts pimped on F’book being run out of chap or chapesses bedroom that is then resolved by simple abandonment of profile and fake picture of chap/chapess waving a stack of cash.
“Let me just cut to the chase,” said Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, before Zuckerberg started giving evidence. “If you and other social media companies do not get your act in order, none of us are going to have any privacy any more. If Facebook and other online companies will not or cannot fix the privacy invasions, then we are going to have to. We, the Congress.”
But with users being the product and advertisers the actual customers, will fixing “privacy invasions” lead to a failure of the business model and, despite promising to there will always be a free version Facebook, a need to offer a paywall and subscription tier? (techcrunch.com, Oct. 2017). And can that stop—or indeed even be the cause of—making F’book a wasteland later with attemptted gentrification that is seemingly the fate of social media platform when they are just no longer cool, à la MySpace.
Updated 11th April 2018
And as Zuck gets ready for his second day before congress, much reflection was made of his answers:
Senator Dick Durbin asked him in the public hearing: “Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night?”
The clock started ticking as Zuckerberg realised the gravity of the question he was facing during the intense questioning about online digital privacy.
But what was missing was a free social service making money off of allowing him to network and peacock in front of assorted friended strangers and so his eventual answer was “Um, uh, no.” And it was followed up asking him “if you’ve messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you’ve messaged” which again, with no “free” service to tempt him got a similar answer.
And the real culprit was identified, being the one that the FBI is investigating if they paid for all the dodgy ad revenue that has got Zuck in such a mess:
Zuckerberg: Facebook is in ‘arms race’ with Russia (bbc.co.uk).
“This is an arms race. They’re going to keep getting better,” he said.
But F’book “getting better at what” should perhaps have been next question in line. He also revealed that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election that saw Americans elect the most ridiculous that they could find willing to stand, had interviewed Facebook staff but that he himself had not—yet—been interviewed by Mr Mueller’s office.
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, who blamed Facebook for the “cynical manipulation of American citizens for political purposes”, asked Mr Zuckerberg: “Was your personal data sold sold to malicious third parties?”
Mr Zuckerberg responded with only: “Yes.”
Indeed, as was Monkey’s uncles. Catch Zuck’s pouty lip getting a grilling by Congresswoman Eshoo on this and being asked if he is prepared to change his business model in the interests of protecting privacy here (video, money.cnn.com).
Next page: A patent suggests Amazon was looking to have Alexa listen in without wake word being spoken for purpose of targeted advertising and product recommendations and Facebook has a patent for determining your personality type to better target ads; British MPs threaten Zuckerberg with summons and Cambridge Analytica goes into administration; Facebook suspends 200 apps but seemingly can’t really be sure who was doing what with anyones data.