Parliamentary Select Cttee report on Facebook

[DracoM]

Letter from Rebecca Stimson, Facebook, to the Chair of the Committee, 8 June 2018: this is Damian Collins MP, Chair of the DCMS Committee's response:

“In these responses, Facebook continue to display a pattern of evasive behaviour – a pattern which has emerged over the course of our inquiry. The company appears to prefer minimal over rigorous scrutiny. In some cases, these answers even show inconsistencies in their evidence to us. The lack of public scrutiny of social media and tech companies like Facebook, considering their profound influence over our lives, is a matter of serious concern for this Committee. We will be addressing this point as part of our interim report being published in due course.

“There are numerous examples where Facebook’s answers are found wanting:

On digital political advertising (a subject central to our inquiry), Facebook officials previously told us in oral evidence on February 8th that there are rigorous internal rules within the company when it comes to regulating and processing such advertising, but now they tell us they cannot distinguish between political and non-political advertising? This is difficult to believe.
Why won’t they share with us how much resource they are devoting to security? I thought this is a fact they would be proud to share, considering their public dedication to prioritising the safety of its users after the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Why won’t they share country-by-country revenues?
Why do they refuse accountability for fraudulent ads on their site? Isn’t this blatant disregard for safety and protection for users?
“They finish their letter by citing the number of times they have provided evidence to our Committee. Highlighting this fact seems to tell us that Facebook seem reluctant to be subject to continual scrutiny, and prefer that their engagement on these issues be limited to only the minimum necessary, or when pressed, despite them being one of the most influential companies in the world with no public accountability or oversight other than to their shareholders.

“The Committee will keep engaging with Facebook and other relevant actors until the public get the answers they deserve, and will be setting out full recommendations in our forthcoming report.”

[Anastasius]

He is stating what I have maintained ever since Faecebook and other social media crawled out from underneath a very slimy stone. Social media is vile. Zuckerberg should be charged with crimes against humanity. Look at the mental and social problems that social media etc are giving our children. And some adults.

[MrGongGong]

He is stating what I have maintained ever since Facebook and other social media crawled out from underneath a very slimy stone. Social media is vile. Zuckerberg should be charged with crimes against humanity. Look at the mental and social problems that social media etc are giving our children. And some adults.

I think people over egg this completely
I'm amazed that so many people are surprised to find that Facebook is a data mining company
that's what it does, and in exchange for sharing data, it's users get to share other things (including FF's rather tasty looking French cuisine: biggrin:)

Zuckerberg DID "acquire" a database to start his company in rather dubious circumstances

BUT it's daft to dismiss the considerable advantages of social media (including online messageboards !)

[Anastasius]

Over-egging ? Where have you been ? Don't you read the papers ?

Anyway, there is considerable difference between a useful forum and unmoderated trolling that goes on plus the peer pressure etc from FB et al

[MrGongGong]

Over-egging ? Where have you been ? Don't you read the papers ?

Anyway, there is considerable difference between a useful forum and unmoderated trolling that goes on plus the peer pressure etc from FB et al

My experience of FB is not like that at all
I used to be very cynical about it
but as a tool for keeping in touch and having collaboration and conversation it's great

It always was a data mining company
don't want your data mined
don't go there

There ARE things wrong with it, but to make out that (and on this social media platform?) that ALL social media is somehow evil is daft



I do find though, that there is considerable "peer pressure" from the ARP 2600 enthusiasts to make me spend money I don't have on vintage synthesisers

[Anastasius]

My experience of FB is not like that at all
I used to be very cynical about it
but as a tool for keeping in touch and having collaboration and conversation it's great

It always was a data mining company
don't want your data mined
don't go there

There ARE things wrong with it, but to make out that (and on this social media platform?) that ALL social media is somehow evil is daft



I do find though, that there is considerable "peer pressure" from the ARP 2600 enthusiasts to make me spend money I don't have on vintage synthesisers

You really ARE missing the point. It has nothing to do with data-mining although that is another negative aspect of the likes of Faecebook. Surely you cannot be that obtuse ? It's about social harm, lack of self-esteem, bullying, suicides, trolling etc.

[MrGongGong]

You really ARE missing the point. It has nothing to do with data-mining although that is another negative aspect of the likes of Faecebook. Surely you cannot be that obtuse ? It's about social harm, lack of self-esteem, bullying, suicides, trolling etc.

So you mean what people DO with it?
In the same way that you can make this



with a sharp impliment
OR stab someone in the back with it?

I'm not diminishing the negative effects of what some people do BUT I do think there is considerable moral panic about this which will probably seem ridiculous in the future(I think this is one of the key texts https://infodocks.files.wordpress.co...ral_panics.pdf )

Nice to see you waited till the significant moment to post (to this social media forum !) your comment, I will take that as a sign from JC

Rich people and companies behaving badly is hardly news though, is it?
That's the gig with the kind of capitalism that many folks want. Didn't have you down as an emthusiast for the "Nanny State" though.

[Anastasius]

So you mean what people DO with it?
In the same way that you can make this



with a sharp impliment
OR stab someone in the back with it?

I'm not diminishing the negative effects of what some people do BUT I do think there is considerable moral panic about this which will probably seem ridiculous in the future(I think this is one of the key texts https://infodocks.files.wordpress.co...ral_panics.pdf )

Nice to see you waited till the significant moment to post (to this social media forum !) your comment, I will take that as a sign from JC

Rich people and companies behaving badly is hardly news though, is it?
That's the gig with the kind of capitalism that many folks want. Didn't have you down as an emthusiast for the "Nanny State" though.

On the other hand, there could be a genuine cause for concern here that should not be dismissed as 'moral panic'. It's too easy to just walk away from what is a serious issue and to shrug ones shoulders.

[MrGongGong]

On the other hand, there could be a genuine cause for concern here that should not be dismissed as 'moral panic'. It's too easy to just walk away from what is a serious issue and to shrug ones shoulders.

I wasn't doing that
There ARE some things that people need to do
like be NICE to each other
but to dismiss ALL "social media" (and ON social media !) as "Social media is vile" seems a little overacting

Zuckerberg seems to be the current favourite scapegoat (NOT that he is anything other than a capitalist businessman, and there are many of those)

[Anastasius]

I wasn't doing that
There ARE some things that people need to do
like be NICE to each other
but to dismiss ALL "social media" (and ON social media !) as "Social media is vile" seems a little overacting

Zuckerberg seems to be the current favourite scapegoat (NOT that he is anything other than a capitalist businessman, and there are many of those)

Fair enough. Just as long as you include MeToo and Positive Discrimination in the same moral panic bucket.

[MrGongGong]

Fair enough. Just as long as you include MeToo and Positive Discrimination in the same moral panic bucket.

yes, there is a lot of "Moral Panic" about so called "positive discrimination" with some idiots seeming to think that by creating more equitable ways of doing things they are being persecuted.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

yes, there is a lot of "Moral Panic" about so called "positive discrimination" with some idiots seeming to think that by creating more equitable ways of doing things they are being persecuted.

Changing who the baddies are merely moves the lack of equity somewhere else. It may look good in statistics, but positive discrimination is negative discrimination.

[MrGongGong]

Changing who the baddies are merely moves the lack of equity somewhere else. It may look good in statistics, but positive discrimination is negative discrimination.

Of course
and we all need you to tell us what is what

Thanks for that i'll pass it on
I'm sure you really aren't as stupid as this comment suggests ?

Creating equitable opportunities is positive for ALL of us
it's not cake FFS

[Anastasius]

yes, there is a lot of "Moral Panic" about so called "positive discrimination" with some idiots seeming to think that by creating more equitable ways of doing things they are being persecuted.

Ah yes. 'Positive discrimination '. The replacement of perceived discrimination with a real discrimination. 'We have 10% of our workforce from ethnic origins. Therefore our board/management/whatever must be 10% ethnic. Doesn't matter if they aren't all capable of fulfilling the role."

But as a virtue-signaller you won't agree with that definition.

[Anastasius]

Changing who the baddies are merely moves the lack of equity somewhere else. It may look good in statistics, but positive discrimination is negative discrimination.

You've hit the nail on the head, EA. But let's leave the last word to the virtue-signaller.