News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is Elusive. Parent comment

Re:Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is E... by JohnFen on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @12:58PM (#19799105)
> This is fine in my book as long as they involve more sociologists/psychologists in the process, are transparent about unintended consequences and what behavior modification they are indulging in.

Even with your conditions, this would be the exact opposite of "fine" in my book. The involvement of sociologists/psychologists would make it even worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is E... by politician on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @01:19PM (#19799381)
It's like being force-fed drugs and then saying that this is ok because doctors have approved it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is E... by kodz4 on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @01:32PM (#19799516)
Why? These fields have never had access to this level of data. What they bumbled about doing in the past without all the data, cannot be used to judge what their impact is going to be in the future with it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook's Zuckerberg Preaches Privacy, but Evidence Is E... by JohnFen on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @03:48PM (#19800907)
I'm confused as to what you're saying here. Are you saying (as I originally thought) that the involvement of sociologists and psychologists makes manipulating users more acceptable?

Or are you saying, as it sounds like here, that access to Facebook data is good for the fields of psychology and sociology?

In any case, the involvement of socio/psychologists in the process of user manipulation makes the situation worse precisely because it could very likely make that manipulation more effective.

[ Parent | on HN ]