OT: Facebook: are its days numbered?

[queenslandpie]

This is the only social media-type platform I use, because people are talking about something that interests me (Notts County, football generally and a side order of politics and world news).

I've never bothered with Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram and whatever other options are out there. Primarily this is because I'm rarely all that interested in what anyone else is doing or where they are, nor do I expect them to be interested in what I'm doing or where I am!

My online retail empire uses Facebook extensively for advertising and remarketing and we generate an impressive 10:1 ROI. Personally I don't use it at all. If it went it wouldnt bother me I'd find somewhere else to spend my advertising $.

[theory_extinct]

So it wasn't only the Russians who helped Trump win the election but Facebook and Cambridge Analytica too. No wonder the rest of us didn't stand a chance.
Facebook now in serious trouble. Zuckerberg running and hiding when he should be facing the music. But then this is a man who calls his customers 'dumb f*cks'.
Facebook can do anything in the world if it pleases an advertiser but isn't prepared to invest in the security of its customers. Facebook is standing proof of the axiom that 'if you get something for nothing then that means YOU are the product'.
People need to think carefully about pulling out of Facebook asap. Maybe the security of organisations like NCFC is less threatened.

Not a huge FB fan, but the amount of mis-information around this is maddening and tabloid/politian fodder.

The only data mined by CA was that people put on their "public" profiles. At the time it was mined the FB algorithm allowed people to view friends of friends public profiles. CA used that to their advantage. That "feature" was closed down a couple of years ago.

The CA survey wasn't the standard FB "find out who your GoT character is", people were paid to take part and had to download an app to take part. Once they did that it was out of FB's hands, as they had given CA access to the FB profile and password. CA then exploited the above "feature".


As for security, there are plenty of tools on FB to secure your information. The problem is that it is a platform mostly used by the computer illiterate elderyly, who have no comprehension of how to use the platform securley.

As for the end. Twitter is still around after its breaches. So is Yahoo (amazingly). This is just a PR blip.

[AltyPie]

So it wasn't only the Russians who helped Trump win the election but Facebook and Cambridge Analytica too. No wonder the rest of us didn't stand a chance.
Facebook now in serious trouble. Zuckerberg running and hiding when he should be facing the music. But then this is a man who calls his customers 'dumb f*cks'.
Facebook can do anything in the world if it pleases an advertiser but isn't prepared to invest in the security of its customers. Facebook is standing proof of the axiom that 'if you get something for nothing then that means YOU are the product'.
People need to think carefully about pulling out of Facebook asap. Maybe the security of organisations like NCFC is less threatened.

Why do you care? I thought you were pro the undermine-democracy types?

[sidders]

Why do you care? I thought you were pro the undermine-democracy types?

Now what on earth gave you that idea?

[AltyPie]

Now what on earth gave you that idea?

Sidders Feb 2018:
"OT: Jezzer turns his back on the referendum result
...and I'm loving it!"

[AltyPie]

Actually, I owe you an apology.
The Russians did spend money trying to influence Brexit apparently. USA today broke the story, Facebook admitted it.
FB’s investigation found THREE suspicious adds that were viewed nearly TWO HUNDRED times in four days and cost 97 cents:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ote/947874001/

… and what’s more, according to Marketing Minefield that’s the equivalent cost of THIRTY leaflets. Imagine the havoc they wreaked. For you, this and the FB-Cambridge Analytica story surely must mean that only a 2nd referendum can put things right now, right?

[sidders]

I don't disagree with democracy just referenda when you're asking people with insufficient knowledge to make a judgement about one of the most important decisions since the war. At the very least it should have required a two-thirds majority. Then I wouldn't have quibbled.
As for your sarky follow-up post, let's just wait and see what Mueller comes up with, shall we? All of this sh*t is deeper than you or I have the capacity to explore.

[Trickytreesreds]

I don't disagree with democracy just referenda when you're asking people with insufficient knowledge to make a judgement about one of the most important decisions since the war. At the very least it should have required a two-thirds majority. Then I wouldn't have quibbled.
As for your sarky follow-up post, let's just wait and see what Mueller comes up with, shall we? All of this sh*t is deeper than you or I have the capacity to explore.

And who decides, who has sufficient knowledge?
No one asked us for 44 years what was good for us.

Where did the two thirds majority come from? Are you advocating we change all election rules now?

[AltyPie]

I don't disagree with democracy just referenda when you're asking people with insufficient knowledge to make a judgement about one of the most important decisions since the war. At the very least it should have required a two-thirds majority. Then I wouldn't have quibbled.
As for your sarky follow-up post, let's just wait and see what Mueller comes up with, shall we? All of this sh*t is deeper than you or I have the capacity to explore.

Here's another one you can call "sarky" if you want:

This is the 2nd time you've come out with this "major constitutional changes require 2/3 majority" thing and this will be the 2nd time I've asked you this question:

In 2008, MP’s voted 346 For, 206 Against, to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. That’s 63% For. That’s less than your 2/3 (66.6%). As a man of principle, will you therefore now be taking the position that the Labour led 2008 Govt should never have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and that we should go for a hard Brexit immediately?

[BigFatPie]

Actually, I owe you an apology.
The Russians did spend money trying to influence Brexit apparently. USA today broke the story, Facebook admitted it.
FB’s investigation found THREE suspicious adds that were viewed nearly TWO HUNDRED times in four days and cost 97 cents:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ote/947874001/

… and what’s more, according to Marketing Minefield that’s the equivalent cost of THIRTY leaflets. Imagine the havoc they wreaked. For you, this and the FB-Cambridge Analytica story surely must mean that only a 2nd referendum can put things right now, right?

So Facebook’s own investigation into whether dodgy ads on Facebook influenced the referendum is good enough for you to decide that they didn’t influence the referendum? An investigation reported on in December, before the vast majority of people had even heard of Cambridge Analytica or data harvesting.

Tell you what, get back to pant sniffing or your blow up woman or whatever else it is you do when you’re not pretending to be a Notts fan.