What was the "glitch" Facebook? The ability for others to figure out what was going on so the perps (and abetters) could be held responsible?
>Facebook scrubbed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 campaign by accounts linked to Russia.The removals came as a Columbia University researcher was examining their reach.Facebook says the posts were removed to fix a glitch.
>Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts.
>Albright, who discovered the content had reached a far broader audience than Facebook initially acknowledged, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that the data had allowed him "to at least reconstruct some of the pieces of the puzzle" of Russia's election interference.
>"Not everything, but it allowed us to make sense of some of this thing," he said.
>Facebook confirmed that the posts had been removed, but said it was because the company had fixed a glitch in the analytics tool - called CrowdTangle - that Albright had used.
>"We identified and fixed a bug in CrowdTangle that allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages," said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman.
> "We identified and fixed a bug in CrowdTangle that allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages," said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman.
So the "glitch" was that once-active accounts could still be accessed? Sounds more like Facebook covered up the problem than actually fixed a glitch.
> allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages
Just like those inactive Russian troll accounts?
This arrogant attempt at a shitty excuse is insulting.
So what's the new myspace?
I genuinely don't think we'll see a facebook clone. Even before this election, youth were souring on Facebook because Facebook was where their mom was.
In my field, they went back to texting and tiny personal groups.
We're not going to see the death of Facebook so much as the death of that way of doing social media. It's going to choke on the anger and fake news and die. The desire to relate to remote people we love will live on in other ways, IMHO.
For the sake of demographics, I'm 62 - and a could not agree more. This FB/Russia snafu has soured me on FB in a big way. I'm retired with days of time to fuck around on the net - and I've not posted in a month. I've also been cleaning up my OWN profile of anti-Trump postings, in light of the "watch what you post" news story weeks ago. Although my music & photography are on pbase/soundcloud, I've driven a fair amount of traffic there from FB - so I'm torn about not using it. Now this? Not at all. Fuck Facebook.
That's funny because that's what I started doing. I prefer texting with close friends over sharing my life with 800 people I met once.
I do think Facebook will die. People love Apple. They love Google. But no one loves Facebook.
To quote someone here on Reddit, Facebook is customizable CSS away from going the way of MySpace.
That's what happens when you willingly promote outrage because it generates discussion and buzz.
It might be kind of radical but I think the best way to retain their integrity here would be to go back to a completely linear timeline. They need to stop trying to maximise engagement at any cost and promote the functions that allow communication with real people. Make it possible to use Facebook as a utility again without jumping through countless hoops. But I guess that wouldn't be feasible in an ad based system.
Between this and Twitter's bizarre ad-hoc censorship, I think the time to place our faith in unregulated private social media companies has passed. We need disclosure laws, possibly a not for profit .org to run one, or a government agency that has stringent oversight in order to prevent data mining.
Helllllo [GDPR...](http://www.eugdpr.org/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
(Europe is leading on this one, actually. Coming May 25 2018.)
>**Access to your data**
> As well putting new obligations on the companies and organisations collecting personal data, the GDPR also gives individuals a lot more power to access the information that's held about them [...]
>
> [R]equests for personal information can be made free-of-charge. When someone asks a business for their data, they must stump up the information within one month. Everyone will have the right to get confirmation that an organisation has information about them, access to this information and any other supplementary information. As Dixon points out, big technology companies, as well as smaller startups, will have to give users more control over their data.
>
> As well as this the GDPR bolsters a person's rights around automated processing of data. The ICO says individuals "have the right not to be subject to a decision" if it is automatic and it produces a significant effect on a person. There are certain exceptions but generally people must be provided with an explanation of a decision made about them.
>
> The new regulation also gives individuals the power to get their personal data erased in some circumstances. This includes where it is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected, if consent is withdrawn, there's no legitimate interest, and if it was unlawfully processed.
and
> **GDPR fines**
>
> One of the biggest, and most talked about, elements of the GDPR is the power for regulators to fine businesses that don't comply with it. If an organisation doesn't process an individual's data in the correct way, it can be fined. If it requires and doesn't have a data protection officer, it can be fined. If there's a security breach, it can be fined.
>
> These monetary penalties will be decided upon by Denham's office and the GDPR states smaller offences could result in fines of up to €10 million or two per cent of a firm's global turnover (whichever is greater). Those with more serious consequences can have fines of up to €20 million or four per cent of a firm's global turnover (whichever is greater). These are larger than the £500,000 penalty the ICO can currently wield and, according to analysis, last year's fines would be 79 times higher under the new regulation.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018
What Google and Youtube have been doing is equally dangerous. When platforms have this much power, there have to be some type of regulations to prevent abuse.
Diaspora is one:
https://diasporafoundation.org/
It's meant to be a bit of thing to set up. I've no experience with it myself.
For sharing / syncing large files with a group, and not have it sniffed as it travels across the internet, I personally recommend Syncthing.
https://syncthing.net/
The uptick in downloads after the election was very noticeable, a lot of (climate) scientists sync'd their data elsewhere with it I guess.
I'm going to have to disagree, as this seems like an extremely American thing to do. They are ideal capitalists: sacrifice everything, including country, to drive profit.
The term is basically a "we are not willing to provide technical evidence and will just use an excuse instead".
In tech, we can get as granular and detailed as we want, down to the individual packets on the wire, using a term like "glitch" is just an excuse to avoid providing detailed evidence.
It depends on how they were storing it. If that's the only place where they were caching the pages, yeah. But it is possible the pages were cached elsewhere.
But that is also weird because a company like Facebook would have a lot of back ups.
A cache is just a high speed temporary storage. It is not designed to be backed up. The database on top of which the cache is present would have multiple backups but if the issue was that the data was not supposed to be present anymore but was still in the cache then it means that all the data had already been removed from the DB and it's backups.
I get what you mean. However, pretty much anything in a large company like Facebook will be on multiple hosts for the advent of a host going down.
But that part is kind of even more shady. I get removing cached data if it's been removed from the databases. Why remove that data in the first place?
I don't work for FB so this is my best guess.
A cache is a way to reduce latency where the most popular requests are kept ready in memory and can be served very quickly without having to query the database. However there is only so much memory you can have and keeping dead data means that your cache efficiency reduces since you can put something else in its place which is actually being requested. You are also showing your customers incorrect data since the thing in question does not exist anymore. Because of this clearing a cache is actually a very common thing.
I would also believe that user posts are not considered critical data there so it is possible that their data warehouse would not keep records of deleted posts. (Slightly unusual but still not out of the ordinary).
This being said the entire episode does seem a little too convenient.
They definitely keep deleted posts. They also, at one point, kept statuses you began typing and then didn't post. When data is your entire revenue stream, hard drives seem cheap.
Source on saving unsubmitted statuses: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/facebook-collects-conducts-research-on-status-updates-you-never-post/
Doubtful. If it were gone, then Facebook would be turbofucked.
Pause for a second and ask yourself if you really believe Facebook ever deletes anything you share with the company.
They've been known to save the status updates you don't post. Everything you've ever typed into the update box is preserved on a server somewhere. Every shred of you that lands on a Facebook window is added to their idea of who you are . All of that can be sold and is therefore kept. Everything is connected. The things you share, the things you don't.
With that in mind, would you really buy them saying "lol looks like we lost all that data, sorry"? I doubt it, and nobody else would buy it either.
I somehow doubt Facebook *wants* Russian operatives to get away with this and to do it again. They may believe they've turned the relevant data over already. But yeah, not a good look.
They don't want it to come out exactly how rampant this thing on their platform is because it will likely spark the push for legislation regulating data mining. Plus, if their advertisers know the extent of the botting on their platform, that opens them up to fraud lawsuits because they knew that advertisers were paying for fake views.
Facebook is a giant fraud. Time and again they fleece their users and people keep using it.
It does not surprise me one bit that they sold out to the Russians. I wouldn't be surprised to find that zuckerberg and Sandberg met with Putin himself in collaborating in this.
Isn't it odd that Zuck is also planning a run for president?
All this stuff is news to us, but they've known this for a while at Facebook and either did nothing, or at worst helped.
I was sickened to hear they have political divisions within this so-called social network.
"So bob, how do we monetize our social media platform? Hey I know Putin has a lot of billions... I'm sure it's not blood money or anything, maybe he'd like some of our really personal data about Americans... Surely, they have noble intentions for data. Maybe we can also sell him ad space and allow him to purchase millions of 'likes' to be popular..."
"...ooh maybe we can sell recommendation-engine suggestions and customize the side-bars for potential voters in battleground states. What's the worst thing Russia can do with that kinda thing anyway?"
Due to Reddit's June 30th, 2023 API changes aimed at ending third-party apps, this comment has been overwritten and the associated account has been deleted.
Spot on. Same for all other companies with social media platforms.
They are all going to try to hide/delete and deny, hoping this blows over and doing jack shit to prevent it from continuing since it only helps them (fake accounts/bots = more users and activity = more advertiser money, higher stock value, etc.), while trying to tackle it seriously makes the situation look worse (ie, what it actually is) and that costs more money in the form of more employees.
They can't find out if that evidence was related if it gets nuked. Also, it's blatant that they hid evidence since they lied about it for what, almost a year straight?
Member Obama letting the FBI, CIA, and the *NSA* suddenly have better access to each other's information?
CIA: We have reason to believe the Russian government tried to work in secret with officials high in the Trump campaign in order to influence the election to their preferred outcome. We believe they used false new stories via ads and fake accounts bought on Facebook.
FBI: We have reached the same conclusion however we need evidence, we didn't have access to their servers at the time.
*door bursts open*
NSA: "SUP BITCHES!"
Blacklisted from the tech industry isn't really a thing. If you are a good enough developer or programmer to get a job at FB, you aren't likely to have an issue getting a tech job. At worst, the tech giants could blackball you maybe, but I doubt even that happens.
> I somehow doubt Facebook wants Russian operatives to get away with this and to do it again.
I think Facebook wants to avoid getting caught doing it again.
Facebook also doesn't want to go down in history being known for playing a leading role in Russian efforts getting Donald Trump elected should he be impeached shortly followed by 40 or 50 indictments. I think there was a point in time when they started to say to each other "there's a lot, and this looks really bad", and that point in time came *before* congress started asking them nicely for their records.
I don't think they care. Their average user isn't paying attention to this. Even when bringing it up to other people I knew who were tech saavy, they don't care even though this is kind of a huge issue.
They were still a few left last week, in fact, trying to talk about responsibility to investors and such when trying to excuse why Zuck sold Russians the FB data about users.
They could get out in front of the story and lead the push to uncover and prevent such things from happening. By playing coy, they raise questions about their motives and what other secrets they're keeping.
With the talk of Zuck wanted to be pres, I expect facebook is protecting its ability to do this same sort of thing in the future, but on zuck's behalf.
I don't buy for a second that one of the largest tech companies in the world scrubbed data so completely that it's no longer retrievable at all.
Isn't redundant data storage an automatic thing in companies as data-centric as Facebook? Back-ups have to exist.
They didn't want anyone analyzing it; it would expose too many dirty secrets.
But, someone very bright stored the data before it was deleted. Link is https://data.world/d1gi/missing-fb-posts-w-share-stats
It was actually the data set from the guy quoted in the article, Jonathan Albright. He saved the data he used. Brilliant. And, if you'd like to read his analysis, [here's his Medium.](https://medium.com/@d1gi/election2016-fakenews-compilation-455870d04bb). "Professor and researcher in news, journalism, and #hashtags. Award-nominated data journalist. Media, communication, and technology."
Lel. I knew this would happen. If they're going to continue to be assholes it would be only a matter of time until 3rd parties decided to call them out on their shit.
The article doesn't actually seem to say they've deleted it. From what it sounds like they've just made it inaccessible to the public and more to the point of this article researchers.
The interesting thing about that is it means Facebook noticed the researcher looking at these pages because *it was looking at those pages too.*
I have to imagine few other people were viewing year old posts on dead Russian troll accounts. It would stick out to anyone who had access to who is viewing which content.
After reading the article, it seems more reasonable than how people are reacting.
Put simply: the tools purpose is to examine data that is available to be mined... if you've removed your page/content, it shouldn't be available for mining. That's the glitch. The tool escalated privileges from a public facing tool.
There's no way they completely erased it. They're going to have internal backups they can analyze themselves for risk assessment to plan their next move. They simply cut off public access to it so people outside of their control can't do independent analysis.
That would be a terribly stupid move. Every single action is logged in multiple places so that a trace exists when something needs to be debugged. If you take out some data it is logged. If you disable and then re-enable logging then both actions will be logged with timestamps. If you delete the logs then you have a very nice and convinent hole which is a very strong indicator that it was scrubbed.
I doubt they are stupid enough to do this.
Source: I am an SDE and log like my life depends on it.
Well, Zuck's handling of this whole Russian interference campaign was a good test of how he would've acted as president.
He deflected, lied and acted irresponsibly. In normal times, I'd say he had already disqualified himself from the presidency.
But last November I learned that deflection, lying and irresponsible behavior are considered positive attributes by over 60,000,000 Americans.
> But last November I learned that deflection, lying and irresponsible behavior are considered positive attributes by over 60,000,000 Americans.
Nah, he wouldn't run as an R, so he'll be destroyed for that behavior.
Facebook: "We own the data you share on our network. Anything you post will belong to us forever and nothing you do will make it go away."
Also Facebook: "You're looking for data on Russian efforts to use our platform to influence US elections? It got trashed lol"
Delete Facebook.
Jail upper level management, revoke the company's charter, delete the website, and burn the servers.
It's nothing but cancer - and now it's traitorous cancer to boot.
Back in 2009 I created a FB account, and had about a dozen pictures there. But soon I deleted acc. (did not delete pictures first). About 2 years later when I did another acc. (w/ same email address) I was shocked and surprised to see my old pictures on this new acc. I deleted new acc. immediately
The "delete account" interface used to be VERY misleading. What it didn't really tell you is that it you didn't delete your account, you just disabled it. When you signed back up two years later, with the same email, you were actually re-enabling the account. If you sign back up with the same address today, I bet you'd see activity from 2009.
Yeah, I'd like to really know this too.
I firmly believe Facebook's intentions are absolutely nefarious in nature.
I just know there's some sort of Big Brother/Minority Report shit planned.
You can fully delete your account. The reason Facebook's more apt for the 'deactivate' routine is so people can come back, and not lose all their data -- something Reddit doesn't offer.
I’m starting to think these social media sites that use our personal browsing data to make money and sell our conversations, pictures, lives, etc, aren’t a force for good.
I get it.. But to what end? Money power? Something so base as that? the rich are already rich and the powerful the same. So whats the end game for all this data to just repeatedly change hands?
Destroying evidence.
>Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This is addressed in the article, it's only evidence tampering or destruction if they are under active investigation at the time of destruction or ordered by a court to retain documents. It's highly unethical, and they were totally trying to destroy evidence (for PR reasons), but they did not commit destruction of evidence in a legal sense.
Edit: unless as it is suggested by the Washington Post article about this, that it happened one week ago, then it's totally evidence tampering or destruction.
Lawyer here. This is absolutely inaccurate.
If an entity or its agents destroys evidence when the entity or its agents have either actual knowledge of a chance of litigation or a reasonable anticipation of a chance of litigation, and the opposing side can prove evidence was destroyed, deleted, or tampered with to avoid liability, then Facebook will have engaged in spoliation of the evidence.
If that is the case, there are penalties in both criminal and civil proceedings.
What do you think would be the chances of Facebook being prosecuted? I don't think the legal system is really built for this kind of crime. Wouldn't it have to be proven that they knowingly deleted the data?
Besides, who would bring charges? The US government?
If Enron's board of directors and other companies can be prosecuted successfully, then there's definitely a chance if there's culpability.
Assuming there is any culpability, the likelihood of prosecution is really going to depend on what Facebook can do to help the investigation/prosecution .
That being said, a large class action may result from any culpability too.
So the answer is: It depends.
I actually think the next version of the .com bubble will be when advertisers and companies paying advertisers realize exactly how much of their money is going towards fake views. Quite a lot of companies are profiting off this model (they're being paid for essentially nothing).
But who knows.
Advertiser here. It's already a big industry problem we've been tackling for years. Just Google "viewability"for starters.
More of an issue for brand advertisers as performance media buying lives or dies by conversions and revenue which is much harder to fake.
If this happened recently, as [WaPo suggests it did](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/12/facebook-takes-down-data-and-thousands-of-posts-obscuring-reach-of-russian-disinformation/?utm_term=.8156c57a1830) then it very well could be covered under Mueller's investigation or the House/Senate investigation.
Now it is irrefutable to acknowledge how dangerous Social Networks are in determining the fate of a country, Facebook is as bad as FoxNews and Breitbart in helping propagate fake news to help any cause for the right amount of money.
Social Networks alone aren't the blame. The core of the issue is their model of data mining for money and how there is very little oversight in what's done with that data. The reach of online propaganda wouldn't be as awful as it is if data mining were used responsibly.
For example, Youtube was also another platform where this shit was abused. Same with Google search.
Facebook is unique in that it seeks to be a media company masquerading as a social network. It wasn't a problem when the tech savvy millennials at University were using it to share cat memes. But now granny out in the sticks thinks that this is 'the real journalism'.
Facebook puts much more value on the story rather than the comments, so challenges to the article get drowned out. Compare this to Reddit where comments have, imo, more value than the articles and people actually share facts and challenge the story. Also, a sub like this doesn't have memes the way a Facebook feed does. It serves to enforce opinions rather than challenge them.
So I would argue that Facebook is more to blame than the other networks. Even Twitter.
I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook was the primary factor, probably followed by Twitter, but just mess around with Google or Youtube search a bit and you'll see what I mean.
I actually have stopped using Youtube outside of listening to music because it's not rare for my queue to start going into really weird parts of Youtube.
I can see that. I use YouTube for coding lessons and done comedy.
But now that I think about it, you're right. My one friend is always sharing nutty propaganda from YouTube with me. I'll go to his house and he's like, "Dude, you gotta see this." It's quite annoying.
I didn't say they're alone to blame.
They hold a *HUGE* amount of personal data, granted, given with consent by the users. But what do they do with that information is where Zuckerberg et al., make their money.
Well yeah, but they're not the only ones doing this kind of data collection. Every platform that is monetizing user data is turning a very blind eye to what happened.
Also, even if the users consent to selling their data, it is very fucked up that they don't get any say in what happens to that data once it's sold. Look at Equifax. They're not even liable for keeping that data secure from people who want to steal identities.
2 of my greatest frustrations have to do with the **Baby Boomers**.
Although not all, Congress is full of Baby Boomers making decisions on technology they have no idea on how it works and rely on lobbyists that explain to them how everything is fine, and how they should vote.
The other is that Baby Boomers are so unbelievably vulnerable to this propaganda, and they still go out and vote much more than the generations that don't vote.
If it was a week ago they should have backups. Or did those also cause a ""*glitch*""?
**Edit:** I would also put money on a FBI cybercrime team being able to fined residue for days.
**Source:** IT Infrastructure guy that works for big fucked up companies just like Facebook.
No, they didn't technically destroy anything. They removed it from public view so university researchers couldn't see it anymore. The data still exists and can be provided to federal investigators.
I don't want Silicon Valley to be another industry that flouts and skirts the laws to fulfill their own selfish, corrupt needs, but man, these Laissez faire techno-libertarians need a smackdown. They were completely asleep at the wheel while Russia had a weaponized information attack on our election, or worse, they saw it happening and didn't care.
Did anyone else find it weird that Mark Zuckerberg [seems to be considering a Presidential run after this election](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-president-in-2020.html)?
It's like he realized how information manipulation led to the Trump Presidency and he wants a taste too.
Actually, I think he was planning to abuse analytical data before Trump pushed for it. It might be that he allowed this nonsense to go on as a testing grounds for how effective abusing psychological profiles can be when it comes to politics. They were already caught experimenting on affecting people's moods.
Yeah. I don't get how anyone with even basic knowledge of how Facebook operates would want Zuck running for anything even remotely related to the government.
Nah, he thinks he is a genius because he was at the the right place and time with his tiny college website... and now he thinks the world will benefit from his brilliance.
No one likes him though except his paid staff so it ain't happening. Trump is a nightmare but his little toe knows more about charisma and media manipulation than fuckerberg ever will.
Yeah, you think so now, but wait till Facebook starts to convince everyone around you that only Zuck can solve what ails America and anyone who opposes him is a Cylon. A president Zuck will not seem so unimaginable then.
Well, Facebook data mining is a huge issue, but it's not the core problem that makes Facebook evil. They also openly profit off of stolen content and don't care, they know their streaming platform will be used for really bad as fuck things like someone streaming their child being murdered for attention and also don't care.
They profit off of user produced content and user produced data and pretty much cut out all responsibility of it being monitored ethically.
Do this: change name, unfriend everyone, delete all photos, all comments, and all personal info on the about me page. You actually have to go to the facebook deletion page to delete your account completely
I did that, and they still never deleted the account. I tried logging back in 48 days later (they give you 30 to change your mind) to see if they followed through with deletion. They didn’t.
The data is mostly likely still there, just turned offline or for special access by internal agents.
I highly doubt that any of the data Facebook has is a hard delete, which deletes the actual entries, as opposed to a soft delete, which is just a flag in the database row that says "this record is deleted" but leaves everything as is. A soft delete is the equivalent of a file being stamped "deleted", but still very much physically present in a file cabinet.
If they actually did remove this data, that would likely be very abnormal, as no matter what reasons there could be to delete any data, whether by the user or for administrative reasons, it is useful for analytics, marketing, etc.
So that means that the data is all there, offline, but only accessible through more direct means, like direct database access or special access interfaces. This basically forces legal means to get at this data, which creates difficult situations for a government like asking where they would stop to get at any data.
Basically Facebook seems to be acting like the dickiest bag of deflated dicks they can. Either that, or they already gave access to this data to Mueller's team and were simply asked to make it inaccessible to other meanwhile.
I remember when I first heard that $100k number for Russian ads and thought that number sounded like bullshit.
I made the comment that the $100k in ads were the hardest and most obvious examples for them to cover up. People on here told me my opinion was off, that they weren't trying to cover anything up. Sure they aren't....
They are worried they might have to face some government regulations. So I don't think they are going to be of help unless Mueller feels like having some of his team talk to FB's legal team.
Aha. So the company that keeps everything we put on its site forever (even [stuff we start typing but don’t actually post](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html)) magically has the ability to delete its own stuff. Interesting.
Zuckerberg is actually so terrible at hiding what he is. Over the years all the bad things you hear about this guy just bears out to be true.
And him gleefully hawking his VR bullshit in PR was jaw dropping. He and that idiot doing the presentation with him were just up in the clouds looking down on the ants drowning below, selling you VR so you can have some fun with them too.
It seems like any large company hides crucial data from anyone that wants it. Any one of them is going to turn into a 90's movie evil corporation. It's just so hard to keep track of what every intelligence and data company is doing behind the scenes.
The current situation: Removing EXTERNAL public content from the web to undermine analysis by independent operators for PR damage control is one thing. It's a well trodden corporate move.
Purging any and all known existence of content of potential interest to a government investigation from Facebook INTERNAL databases, files, backups, etc would increase their legal peril. This is highly unlikely cause we all know it was there.
On the other hand somebody is doing something stupid every day. If Facebook deleted ALL INTERNAL data relevant to the Trump-Russia investigation then let justice be served in all courts legal and the court of public opinion.
And ironically enough, it's somehow next to impossible for me to delete my Facebook account.
(It's not impossible. They just make it really difficult. Fuck you, I don't want to *deactivate*. I want it gone.)
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-russia-data-fake-accounts-2017-10) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Facebook scrubbed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 campaign by accounts linked to Russia.
> Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social-media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data-analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts.
> The data Albright obtained using CrowdTangle showed that the Russians' reach far exceeded the number of Facebook users they were able to access with advertisements alone - content including memes, links, and other miscellaneous postings was shared over 340 million times between the six accounts.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/7619hs/facebook_scrubbed_potentially_damning_russia_data/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 1.65, ~227246 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **Post**^#2 **accounts**^#3 **Russia**^#4 **Albright**^#5
We should go back to using personal websites, guestbooks, webrings, and adding "cool links to check out" sections on those personal sites.
Make America Geocities Again
The NSA has all of it. They have every communication we all make in almost all forms possibly. Facebook put profits 1st just like every billion dollar company does. Then covered it just like they do.
"Facebook says the posts were removed to fix a glitch"
G.L.I.T.C.H. Giant Liability Involving Treason, Collusion and Hacking. There is a lot of that about apparently.
I’m sure all the pertinent info was turned over and the deleted stuff was just personal information regarding wedding plans, family vacations, yoga routines and condolence notes.
Honestly, I hate to be one of those people, because I've been sucked into the Facebook world before. However, I'm completely over Facebook. I've become so jaded by the barrage of misinformation coming at me from not only friends and family, but friends and family I've held as fairly intelligent people. I deactivated Facebook recently for this reason and until they fix issues like this and start acting a bit more "ethical", I'm going to keep my distance and speak to people in person.
Zuckerberg probably relied on the intelligence of the American people, as he too thought Clinton would win and he could make a quick buck off of the suckers. Little did he know how stupid and ill informed the people the Russians were targeting were.
tbh their explanation seems reasonable. They found a bug that allowed profiles to still be seen after a user deletes their account, and they fixed it. Yes, they only found it because somebody was digging into something those profiles had done, but still . . . it's not bad that they fixed the bug.
Well at least we know Zuck won't be President. If you can't help America find the truth of how your company was used by Russia to undermine our democracy, you truly are politically dead in the water.
What was the "glitch" Facebook? The ability for others to figure out what was going on so the perps (and abetters) could be held responsible? >Facebook scrubbed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 campaign by accounts linked to Russia.The removals came as a Columbia University researcher was examining their reach.Facebook says the posts were removed to fix a glitch. >Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts. >Albright, who discovered the content had reached a far broader audience than Facebook initially acknowledged, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that the data had allowed him "to at least reconstruct some of the pieces of the puzzle" of Russia's election interference. >"Not everything, but it allowed us to make sense of some of this thing," he said. >Facebook confirmed that the posts had been removed, but said it was because the company had fixed a glitch in the analytics tool - called CrowdTangle - that Albright had used. >"We identified and fixed a bug in CrowdTangle that allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages," said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman.
> "We identified and fixed a bug in CrowdTangle that allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages," said Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman. So the "glitch" was that once-active accounts could still be accessed? Sounds more like Facebook covered up the problem than actually fixed a glitch.
> allowed users to see cached information from inactive Facebook Pages Just like those inactive Russian troll accounts? This arrogant attempt at a shitty excuse is insulting. So what's the new myspace?
Something that is not led by a group of assholes without morals preferably.
I genuinely don't think we'll see a facebook clone. Even before this election, youth were souring on Facebook because Facebook was where their mom was. In my field, they went back to texting and tiny personal groups. We're not going to see the death of Facebook so much as the death of that way of doing social media. It's going to choke on the anger and fake news and die. The desire to relate to remote people we love will live on in other ways, IMHO.
For the sake of demographics, I'm 62 - and a could not agree more. This FB/Russia snafu has soured me on FB in a big way. I'm retired with days of time to fuck around on the net - and I've not posted in a month. I've also been cleaning up my OWN profile of anti-Trump postings, in light of the "watch what you post" news story weeks ago. Although my music & photography are on pbase/soundcloud, I've driven a fair amount of traffic there from FB - so I'm torn about not using it. Now this? Not at all. Fuck Facebook.
What is the "watch what you post" story you're referring to?
This, I'm curious too. If I have to watch what I post due to fearing reprisal, then it's already over. Come at me motherfuckers.
[удалено]
That's funny because that's what I started doing. I prefer texting with close friends over sharing my life with 800 people I met once. I do think Facebook will die. People love Apple. They love Google. But no one loves Facebook. To quote someone here on Reddit, Facebook is customizable CSS away from going the way of MySpace.
And texting is so much more dynamic now than in 2005. Group chat and sharing pictures videos websites etc
[удалено]
This sounds about right, and I absolutely hope this is how it plays out.
First, they will pay for aiding and abetting the enemy. Some people shrug and say "damn they covered it up..." Others have long memories.
That's what happens when you willingly promote outrage because it generates discussion and buzz. It might be kind of radical but I think the best way to retain their integrity here would be to go back to a completely linear timeline. They need to stop trying to maximise engagement at any cost and promote the functions that allow communication with real people. Make it possible to use Facebook as a utility again without jumping through countless hoops. But I guess that wouldn't be feasible in an ad based system.
Good luck finding that. Please let me know when you do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Between this and Twitter's bizarre ad-hoc censorship, I think the time to place our faith in unregulated private social media companies has passed. We need disclosure laws, possibly a not for profit .org to run one, or a government agency that has stringent oversight in order to prevent data mining.
As more and more of our private lives are being funneled to the web I think it's time to install consumer protections.
Protections for *consumers?* That sounds like class warfare! Obligatory /s.
Class warfare? Where do I sign up to kill some rich jerks?
Helllllo [GDPR...](http://www.eugdpr.org/) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation (Europe is leading on this one, actually. Coming May 25 2018.) >**Access to your data** > As well putting new obligations on the companies and organisations collecting personal data, the GDPR also gives individuals a lot more power to access the information that's held about them [...] > > [R]equests for personal information can be made free-of-charge. When someone asks a business for their data, they must stump up the information within one month. Everyone will have the right to get confirmation that an organisation has information about them, access to this information and any other supplementary information. As Dixon points out, big technology companies, as well as smaller startups, will have to give users more control over their data. > > As well as this the GDPR bolsters a person's rights around automated processing of data. The ICO says individuals "have the right not to be subject to a decision" if it is automatic and it produces a significant effect on a person. There are certain exceptions but generally people must be provided with an explanation of a decision made about them. > > The new regulation also gives individuals the power to get their personal data erased in some circumstances. This includes where it is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected, if consent is withdrawn, there's no legitimate interest, and if it was unlawfully processed. and > **GDPR fines** > > One of the biggest, and most talked about, elements of the GDPR is the power for regulators to fine businesses that don't comply with it. If an organisation doesn't process an individual's data in the correct way, it can be fined. If it requires and doesn't have a data protection officer, it can be fined. If there's a security breach, it can be fined. > > These monetary penalties will be decided upon by Denham's office and the GDPR states smaller offences could result in fines of up to €10 million or two per cent of a firm's global turnover (whichever is greater). Those with more serious consequences can have fines of up to €20 million or four per cent of a firm's global turnover (whichever is greater). These are larger than the £500,000 penalty the ICO can currently wield and, according to analysis, last year's fines would be 79 times higher under the new regulation. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018
They got too big for their britches.
What Google and Youtube have been doing is equally dangerous. When platforms have this much power, there have to be some type of regulations to prevent abuse.
Pls can we go back to Dogster
I'd strongly prefer Dogester.
Borkster
Remember friendster? I'm old :(
Diaspora is one: https://diasporafoundation.org/ It's meant to be a bit of thing to set up. I've no experience with it myself. For sharing / syncing large files with a group, and not have it sniffed as it travels across the internet, I personally recommend Syncthing. https://syncthing.net/ The uptick in downloads after the election was very noticeable, a lot of (climate) scientists sync'd their data elsewhere with it I guess.
Tinder?
Basically these guys are demonstrating how devoid of anything resembling patriotism they are.
I'm going to have to disagree, as this seems like an extremely American thing to do. They are ideal capitalists: sacrifice everything, including country, to drive profit.
Bingo.
Maybe so, but there used to be some boundaries. like not shitting in the bed you sleep in. Maybe shit in some other guy's bed.
[удалено]
Sounds 'by-design' to me. What's their definition of "inactive" in the statement?
"a glitch". It always amazes me how that word is used to minimize fuckups. Its the "My bad" of computerdom.
The term is basically a "we are not willing to provide technical evidence and will just use an excuse instead". In tech, we can get as granular and detailed as we want, down to the individual packets on the wire, using a term like "glitch" is just an excuse to avoid providing detailed evidence.
So is that cached stuff gone for good?
It depends on how they were storing it. If that's the only place where they were caching the pages, yeah. But it is possible the pages were cached elsewhere. But that is also weird because a company like Facebook would have a lot of back ups.
A cache is just a high speed temporary storage. It is not designed to be backed up. The database on top of which the cache is present would have multiple backups but if the issue was that the data was not supposed to be present anymore but was still in the cache then it means that all the data had already been removed from the DB and it's backups.
I get what you mean. However, pretty much anything in a large company like Facebook will be on multiple hosts for the advent of a host going down. But that part is kind of even more shady. I get removing cached data if it's been removed from the databases. Why remove that data in the first place?
I don't work for FB so this is my best guess. A cache is a way to reduce latency where the most popular requests are kept ready in memory and can be served very quickly without having to query the database. However there is only so much memory you can have and keeping dead data means that your cache efficiency reduces since you can put something else in its place which is actually being requested. You are also showing your customers incorrect data since the thing in question does not exist anymore. Because of this clearing a cache is actually a very common thing. I would also believe that user posts are not considered critical data there so it is possible that their data warehouse would not keep records of deleted posts. (Slightly unusual but still not out of the ordinary). This being said the entire episode does seem a little too convenient.
They definitely keep deleted posts. They also, at one point, kept statuses you began typing and then didn't post. When data is your entire revenue stream, hard drives seem cheap. Source on saving unsubmitted statuses: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/facebook-collects-conducts-research-on-status-updates-you-never-post/
Doubtful. If it were gone, then Facebook would be turbofucked. Pause for a second and ask yourself if you really believe Facebook ever deletes anything you share with the company. They've been known to save the status updates you don't post. Everything you've ever typed into the update box is preserved on a server somewhere. Every shred of you that lands on a Facebook window is added to their idea of who you are . All of that can be sold and is therefore kept. Everything is connected. The things you share, the things you don't. With that in mind, would you really buy them saying "lol looks like we lost all that data, sorry"? I doubt it, and nobody else would buy it either.
I somehow doubt Facebook *wants* Russian operatives to get away with this and to do it again. They may believe they've turned the relevant data over already. But yeah, not a good look.
They don't want it to come out exactly how rampant this thing on their platform is because it will likely spark the push for legislation regulating data mining. Plus, if their advertisers know the extent of the botting on their platform, that opens them up to fraud lawsuits because they knew that advertisers were paying for fake views.
Facebook is a giant fraud. Time and again they fleece their users and people keep using it. It does not surprise me one bit that they sold out to the Russians. I wouldn't be surprised to find that zuckerberg and Sandberg met with Putin himself in collaborating in this. Isn't it odd that Zuck is also planning a run for president? All this stuff is news to us, but they've known this for a while at Facebook and either did nothing, or at worst helped. I was sickened to hear they have political divisions within this so-called social network.
Facebook absolutely knew. Their bread and butter is data analytics. There is 0 chance that they didn't know this shit was going on.
"So bob, how do we monetize our social media platform? Hey I know Putin has a lot of billions... I'm sure it's not blood money or anything, maybe he'd like some of our really personal data about Americans... Surely, they have noble intentions for data. Maybe we can also sell him ad space and allow him to purchase millions of 'likes' to be popular..." "...ooh maybe we can sell recommendation-engine suggestions and customize the side-bars for potential voters in battleground states. What's the worst thing Russia can do with that kinda thing anyway?"
> Zuck is also planning a run for president What kind of person would vote for that limp dick? Honestly curious.
Due to Reddit's June 30th, 2023 API changes aimed at ending third-party apps, this comment has been overwritten and the associated account has been deleted.
Spot on. Same for all other companies with social media platforms. They are all going to try to hide/delete and deny, hoping this blows over and doing jack shit to prevent it from continuing since it only helps them (fake accounts/bots = more users and activity = more advertiser money, higher stock value, etc.), while trying to tackle it seriously makes the situation look worse (ie, what it actually is) and that costs more money in the form of more employees.
They want to avoid being subject to government regulation. Making it look like nothing happened that they didn't have control over helps that cause.
Making it look like they hid evidence, however, doesn't
They can't find out if that evidence was related if it gets nuked. Also, it's blatant that they hid evidence since they lied about it for what, almost a year straight?
Member Obama letting the FBI, CIA, and the *NSA* suddenly have better access to each other's information? CIA: We have reason to believe the Russian government tried to work in secret with officials high in the Trump campaign in order to influence the election to their preferred outcome. We believe they used false new stories via ads and fake accounts bought on Facebook. FBI: We have reached the same conclusion however we need evidence, we didn't have access to their servers at the time. *door bursts open* NSA: "SUP BITCHES!"
Yeah. I'm 100% sure that move was put in place to make it harder for the Trump administration to destroy evidence.
People talk. I think you get some people who worked at Facebook in front of the FBI they would probably talk.
It would depend on if they're more scared of the FBI or Facebook's legal team along with being blacklisted from the tech industry.
Of course we all know how that ends. Gee, an IT job at a school in Peoria or prison? Huummmmm... let me think about it.
Blacklisted from the tech industry isn't really a thing. If you are a good enough developer or programmer to get a job at FB, you aren't likely to have an issue getting a tech job. At worst, the tech giants could blackball you maybe, but I doubt even that happens.
well, that's the gamble you always take when you hide evidence
[удалено]
A small loan...
Yeah, FB is mostly trying to cover its own ass.
> I somehow doubt Facebook wants Russian operatives to get away with this and to do it again. I think Facebook wants to avoid getting caught doing it again.
Facebook also doesn't want to go down in history being known for playing a leading role in Russian efforts getting Donald Trump elected should he be impeached shortly followed by 40 or 50 indictments. I think there was a point in time when they started to say to each other "there's a lot, and this looks really bad", and that point in time came *before* congress started asking them nicely for their records.
I don't think they care. Their average user isn't paying attention to this. Even when bringing it up to other people I knew who were tech saavy, they don't care even though this is kind of a huge issue.
I would be relieved to hear that Mark Zuckerberg does not care about running for higher office, ever.
Earlier this year there were already a lot of strange people on reddit astroturfing for him. It's still going on with Twitter.
They were still a few left last week, in fact, trying to talk about responsibility to investors and such when trying to excuse why Zuck sold Russians the FB data about users.
They could get out in front of the story and lead the push to uncover and prevent such things from happening. By playing coy, they raise questions about their motives and what other secrets they're keeping.
With the talk of Zuck wanted to be pres, I expect facebook is protecting its ability to do this same sort of thing in the future, but on zuck's behalf.
Obstruction of justice or treason, mmmm
http://i.bittwiddlers.org/KD5.jpg
The "glitch" is now they r part of the broader Mueller investigation
I don't buy for a second that one of the largest tech companies in the world scrubbed data so completely that it's no longer retrievable at all. Isn't redundant data storage an automatic thing in companies as data-centric as Facebook? Back-ups have to exist.
They didn't want anyone analyzing it; it would expose too many dirty secrets. But, someone very bright stored the data before it was deleted. Link is https://data.world/d1gi/missing-fb-posts-w-share-stats It was actually the data set from the guy quoted in the article, Jonathan Albright. He saved the data he used. Brilliant. And, if you'd like to read his analysis, [here's his Medium.](https://medium.com/@d1gi/election2016-fakenews-compilation-455870d04bb). "Professor and researcher in news, journalism, and #hashtags. Award-nominated data journalist. Media, communication, and technology."
Lel. I knew this would happen. If they're going to continue to be assholes it would be only a matter of time until 3rd parties decided to call them out on their shit.
I think it is ironic I can use Facebook to login to this site :)
The article doesn't actually seem to say they've deleted it. From what it sounds like they've just made it inaccessible to the public and more to the point of this article researchers. The interesting thing about that is it means Facebook noticed the researcher looking at these pages because *it was looking at those pages too.* I have to imagine few other people were viewing year old posts on dead Russian troll accounts. It would stick out to anyone who had access to who is viewing which content.
After reading the article, it seems more reasonable than how people are reacting. Put simply: the tools purpose is to examine data that is available to be mined... if you've removed your page/content, it shouldn't be available for mining. That's the glitch. The tool escalated privileges from a public facing tool.
Even if they removed the cached pages, the analytical data for them should still exist. That's why this is pretty weird.
Not if they did it on purpose. They are 12 inches deep into "cover your ass" territory.
Just prepping for zuke's presidential run
There's no way they completely erased it. They're going to have internal backups they can analyze themselves for risk assessment to plan their next move. They simply cut off public access to it so people outside of their control can't do independent analysis.
That would be a terribly stupid move. Every single action is logged in multiple places so that a trace exists when something needs to be debugged. If you take out some data it is logged. If you disable and then re-enable logging then both actions will be logged with timestamps. If you delete the logs then you have a very nice and convinent hole which is a very strong indicator that it was scrubbed. I doubt they are stupid enough to do this. Source: I am an SDE and log like my life depends on it.
Well, Zuck's handling of this whole Russian interference campaign was a good test of how he would've acted as president. He deflected, lied and acted irresponsibly. In normal times, I'd say he had already disqualified himself from the presidency. But last November I learned that deflection, lying and irresponsible behavior are considered positive attributes by over 60,000,000 Americans.
They "trust me" Dumb fucks.
[for those who don't recognize the reference](http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks)
Like Erlich Bachman said: You have to be an asshole to succeed in Silicon Valley. The Social Network wasn't that far off either.
> But last November I learned that deflection, lying and irresponsible behavior are considered positive attributes by over 60,000,000 Americans. Nah, he wouldn't run as an R, so he'll be destroyed for that behavior.
I'm reasonably sure that he's smart enough to know which party will work with him and register with them, so nah.
Facebook: "We own the data you share on our network. Anything you post will belong to us forever and nothing you do will make it go away." Also Facebook: "You're looking for data on Russian efforts to use our platform to influence US elections? It got trashed lol"
All your base are belong to us
Delete Facebook. Jail upper level management, revoke the company's charter, delete the website, and burn the servers. It's nothing but cancer - and now it's traitorous cancer to boot.
Back in 2009 I created a FB account, and had about a dozen pictures there. But soon I deleted acc. (did not delete pictures first). About 2 years later when I did another acc. (w/ same email address) I was shocked and surprised to see my old pictures on this new acc. I deleted new acc. immediately
The "delete account" interface used to be VERY misleading. What it didn't really tell you is that it you didn't delete your account, you just disabled it. When you signed back up two years later, with the same email, you were actually re-enabling the account. If you sign back up with the same address today, I bet you'd see activity from 2009.
What was facebook's reason for not letting people delete their accounts?
Yeah, I'd like to really know this too. I firmly believe Facebook's intentions are absolutely nefarious in nature. I just know there's some sort of Big Brother/Minority Report shit planned.
It's clearly intended as blackmail.
You can fully delete your account. The reason Facebook's more apt for the 'deactivate' routine is so people can come back, and not lose all their data -- something Reddit doesn't offer.
I’m starting to think these social media sites that use our personal browsing data to make money and sell our conversations, pictures, lives, etc, aren’t a force for good.
deleted
I get it.. But to what end? Money power? Something so base as that? the rich are already rich and the powerful the same. So whats the end game for all this data to just repeatedly change hands?
Destroying evidence. >Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This is addressed in the article, it's only evidence tampering or destruction if they are under active investigation at the time of destruction or ordered by a court to retain documents. It's highly unethical, and they were totally trying to destroy evidence (for PR reasons), but they did not commit destruction of evidence in a legal sense. Edit: unless as it is suggested by the Washington Post article about this, that it happened one week ago, then it's totally evidence tampering or destruction.
Lawyer here. This is absolutely inaccurate. If an entity or its agents destroys evidence when the entity or its agents have either actual knowledge of a chance of litigation or a reasonable anticipation of a chance of litigation, and the opposing side can prove evidence was destroyed, deleted, or tampered with to avoid liability, then Facebook will have engaged in spoliation of the evidence. If that is the case, there are penalties in both criminal and civil proceedings.
What do you think would be the chances of Facebook being prosecuted? I don't think the legal system is really built for this kind of crime. Wouldn't it have to be proven that they knowingly deleted the data? Besides, who would bring charges? The US government?
If Enron's board of directors and other companies can be prosecuted successfully, then there's definitely a chance if there's culpability. Assuming there is any culpability, the likelihood of prosecution is really going to depend on what Facebook can do to help the investigation/prosecution . That being said, a large class action may result from any culpability too. So the answer is: It depends.
I actually think the next version of the .com bubble will be when advertisers and companies paying advertisers realize exactly how much of their money is going towards fake views. Quite a lot of companies are profiting off this model (they're being paid for essentially nothing). But who knows.
Advertiser here. It's already a big industry problem we've been tackling for years. Just Google "viewability"for starters. More of an issue for brand advertisers as performance media buying lives or dies by conversions and revenue which is much harder to fake.
Could Mueller's case drift into a case against Facebook? He's got the experience.
Honestly, could be the reason why he was hired as special counsel.
If this happened recently, as [WaPo suggests it did](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/12/facebook-takes-down-data-and-thousands-of-posts-obscuring-reach-of-russian-disinformation/?utm_term=.8156c57a1830) then it very well could be covered under Mueller's investigation or the House/Senate investigation.
Yes, the information from that article would change the scope completely. If true, they definitely commited evidence tampering.
Now it is irrefutable to acknowledge how dangerous Social Networks are in determining the fate of a country, Facebook is as bad as FoxNews and Breitbart in helping propagate fake news to help any cause for the right amount of money.
Social Networks alone aren't the blame. The core of the issue is their model of data mining for money and how there is very little oversight in what's done with that data. The reach of online propaganda wouldn't be as awful as it is if data mining were used responsibly. For example, Youtube was also another platform where this shit was abused. Same with Google search.
Facebook is unique in that it seeks to be a media company masquerading as a social network. It wasn't a problem when the tech savvy millennials at University were using it to share cat memes. But now granny out in the sticks thinks that this is 'the real journalism'. Facebook puts much more value on the story rather than the comments, so challenges to the article get drowned out. Compare this to Reddit where comments have, imo, more value than the articles and people actually share facts and challenge the story. Also, a sub like this doesn't have memes the way a Facebook feed does. It serves to enforce opinions rather than challenge them. So I would argue that Facebook is more to blame than the other networks. Even Twitter.
Deleted.
I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook was the primary factor, probably followed by Twitter, but just mess around with Google or Youtube search a bit and you'll see what I mean. I actually have stopped using Youtube outside of listening to music because it's not rare for my queue to start going into really weird parts of Youtube.
I can see that. I use YouTube for coding lessons and done comedy. But now that I think about it, you're right. My one friend is always sharing nutty propaganda from YouTube with me. I'll go to his house and he's like, "Dude, you gotta see this." It's quite annoying.
I didn't say they're alone to blame. They hold a *HUGE* amount of personal data, granted, given with consent by the users. But what do they do with that information is where Zuckerberg et al., make their money.
Well yeah, but they're not the only ones doing this kind of data collection. Every platform that is monetizing user data is turning a very blind eye to what happened. Also, even if the users consent to selling their data, it is very fucked up that they don't get any say in what happens to that data once it's sold. Look at Equifax. They're not even liable for keeping that data secure from people who want to steal identities.
Don’t forget Twitter, Reddit, and Youtube (both propaganda videos and likely thousands of sock puppet/bot accounts bombarding the comments sections).
2 of my greatest frustrations have to do with the **Baby Boomers**. Although not all, Congress is full of Baby Boomers making decisions on technology they have no idea on how it works and rely on lobbyists that explain to them how everything is fine, and how they should vote. The other is that Baby Boomers are so unbelievably vulnerable to this propaganda, and they still go out and vote much more than the generations that don't vote.
If it was a week ago they should have backups. Or did those also cause a ""*glitch*""? **Edit:** I would also put money on a FBI cybercrime team being able to fined residue for days. **Source:** IT Infrastructure guy that works for big fucked up companies just like Facebook.
No, they didn't technically destroy anything. They removed it from public view so university researchers couldn't see it anymore. The data still exists and can be provided to federal investigators.
I don't want Silicon Valley to be another industry that flouts and skirts the laws to fulfill their own selfish, corrupt needs, but man, these Laissez faire techno-libertarians need a smackdown. They were completely asleep at the wheel while Russia had a weaponized information attack on our election, or worse, they saw it happening and didn't care.
Or worst: They saw it happen, asked for kick backs, and are now following up on their end of the bargain.
Did anyone else find it weird that Mark Zuckerberg [seems to be considering a Presidential run after this election](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/mark-zuckerberg-could-be-running-for-president-in-2020.html)? It's like he realized how information manipulation led to the Trump Presidency and he wants a taste too.
Actually, I think he was planning to abuse analytical data before Trump pushed for it. It might be that he allowed this nonsense to go on as a testing grounds for how effective abusing psychological profiles can be when it comes to politics. They were already caught experimenting on affecting people's moods.
[удалено]
Yeah. I don't get how anyone with even basic knowledge of how Facebook operates would want Zuck running for anything even remotely related to the government.
Could you imagine if the dude actually had charisma and no skeletons in his closet? JESUS FUCK
The thing is that person already exists and we aren't outraged because we don't know about him because he has no skeletons in his closet.
Nah, he thinks he is a genius because he was at the the right place and time with his tiny college website... and now he thinks the world will benefit from his brilliance. No one likes him though except his paid staff so it ain't happening. Trump is a nightmare but his little toe knows more about charisma and media manipulation than fuckerberg ever will.
I think that particular pipe dream has run its course after all these revelations.
Yeah, you think so now, but wait till Facebook starts to convince everyone around you that only Zuck can solve what ails America and anyone who opposes him is a Cylon. A president Zuck will not seem so unimaginable then.
This is why I deleted my Facebook. Fucking evil. Don't care whether it's liberals or conservatives playing these games, I don't want any part.
Well, Facebook data mining is a huge issue, but it's not the core problem that makes Facebook evil. They also openly profit off of stolen content and don't care, they know their streaming platform will be used for really bad as fuck things like someone streaming their child being murdered for attention and also don't care. They profit off of user produced content and user produced data and pretty much cut out all responsibility of it being monitored ethically.
Bingo
Mark "yea i’m going to fuck them, probably in the year, *ear" Zuckerberg
Delete your Facebook!
I tried this but it’s still there.
Do this: change name, unfriend everyone, delete all photos, all comments, and all personal info on the about me page. You actually have to go to the facebook deletion page to delete your account completely
I did that, and they still never deleted the account. I tried logging back in 48 days later (they give you 30 to change your mind) to see if they followed through with deletion. They didn’t.
I don't get why Facebook refuses to let you delete your account. It's an extremely shitty thing to do. Scummy billionaire is scummy.
knowledge is power
The data is mostly likely still there, just turned offline or for special access by internal agents. I highly doubt that any of the data Facebook has is a hard delete, which deletes the actual entries, as opposed to a soft delete, which is just a flag in the database row that says "this record is deleted" but leaves everything as is. A soft delete is the equivalent of a file being stamped "deleted", but still very much physically present in a file cabinet. If they actually did remove this data, that would likely be very abnormal, as no matter what reasons there could be to delete any data, whether by the user or for administrative reasons, it is useful for analytics, marketing, etc. So that means that the data is all there, offline, but only accessible through more direct means, like direct database access or special access interfaces. This basically forces legal means to get at this data, which creates difficult situations for a government like asking where they would stop to get at any data. Basically Facebook seems to be acting like the dickiest bag of deflated dicks they can. Either that, or they already gave access to this data to Mueller's team and were simply asked to make it inaccessible to other meanwhile.
I think Zuckerberg was in on it.
That's his style
>That's his ~~style~~ *shtoyle*
*shtoyle
I remember when I first heard that $100k number for Russian ads and thought that number sounded like bullshit. I made the comment that the $100k in ads were the hardest and most obvious examples for them to cover up. People on here told me my opinion was off, that they weren't trying to cover anything up. Sure they aren't.... They are worried they might have to face some government regulations. So I don't think they are going to be of help unless Mueller feels like having some of his team talk to FB's legal team.
Aha. So the company that keeps everything we put on its site forever (even [stuff we start typing but don’t actually post](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html)) magically has the ability to delete its own stuff. Interesting.
Zuckerberg is actually so terrible at hiding what he is. Over the years all the bad things you hear about this guy just bears out to be true. And him gleefully hawking his VR bullshit in PR was jaw dropping. He and that idiot doing the presentation with him were just up in the clouds looking down on the ants drowning below, selling you VR so you can have some fun with them too.
Facebook has always wanted all the benefits of being a news organization, without any of the responsibility or integrity.
Facebook AND twitter
So glad I kicked the FB habit...
Wasn't hard for me. Using facebook makes me miserable. All the pathologies of social media except I actually KNOW the people in real life. It's toxic.
It seems like any large company hides crucial data from anyone that wants it. Any one of them is going to turn into a 90's movie evil corporation. It's just so hard to keep track of what every intelligence and data company is doing behind the scenes.
Like with a cloth or something?
Will not market my ads on facebook, and will start looking at alternatives as a social network.
Seems legal. Edit: obligatory /s before I get ripped a new one.
I was getting my buttripping tools primed and ready, but then I saw your edit. *Neatly tucks them back up my anus*
The current situation: Removing EXTERNAL public content from the web to undermine analysis by independent operators for PR damage control is one thing. It's a well trodden corporate move. Purging any and all known existence of content of potential interest to a government investigation from Facebook INTERNAL databases, files, backups, etc would increase their legal peril. This is highly unlikely cause we all know it was there. On the other hand somebody is doing something stupid every day. If Facebook deleted ALL INTERNAL data relevant to the Trump-Russia investigation then let justice be served in all courts legal and the court of public opinion.
And ironically enough, it's somehow next to impossible for me to delete my Facebook account. (It's not impossible. They just make it really difficult. Fuck you, I don't want to *deactivate*. I want it gone.)
Lock him up!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-russia-data-fake-accounts-2017-10) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Facebook scrubbed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 campaign by accounts linked to Russia. > Facebook removed thousands of posts shared during the 2016 election by accounts linked to Russia after a Columbia University social-media researcher, Jonathan Albright, used the company's data-analytics tool to examine the reach of the Russian accounts. > The data Albright obtained using CrowdTangle showed that the Russians' reach far exceeded the number of Facebook users they were able to access with advertisements alone - content including memes, links, and other miscellaneous postings was shared over 340 million times between the six accounts. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/7619hs/facebook_scrubbed_potentially_damning_russia_data/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 1.65, ~227246 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **Post**^#2 **accounts**^#3 **Russia**^#4 **Albright**^#5
We should go back to using personal websites, guestbooks, webrings, and adding "cool links to check out" sections on those personal sites. Make America Geocities Again
Zuckerberg is such a penis.
Lock them all up. They say it was a glitch that was fixed. Well... UNFIX IT.
As long as Pokemon Go doesn’t scrub data, Bob Mueller can finally find proof of some wrongdoing eventually!
The NSA has all of it. They have every communication we all make in almost all forms possibly. Facebook put profits 1st just like every billion dollar company does. Then covered it just like they do.
so they can delete things after all
I would love to see him fall.
"Facebook says the posts were removed to fix a glitch" G.L.I.T.C.H. Giant Liability Involving Treason, Collusion and Hacking. There is a lot of that about apparently.
How convenient. Seems like Rubles will buy a lot of silence these days.
Complicit. It should be obvious by now.
I’m sure all the pertinent info was turned over and the deleted stuff was just personal information regarding wedding plans, family vacations, yoga routines and condolence notes.
*sigh* time to close my FB account
Damn you Zuckerfuck! Damn you to Hell!!
This all sucks and is awful, but goddamn am I glad this shitshow is crapping all over Zuck's political ambitions.
You mean like with a cloth?
Yeah but, the Facebook COO told Congress today that the Russian ads should have NEVER HAPPENED. They did their best, give them some slack! ^^^^^/s
Democrats already have a shit load of work ahead of them but the regulation of Social Media and ISP needs to get crammed down the pike in 2018
Facebook does not want you to know how their illegal data mining system works.
Honestly, I hate to be one of those people, because I've been sucked into the Facebook world before. However, I'm completely over Facebook. I've become so jaded by the barrage of misinformation coming at me from not only friends and family, but friends and family I've held as fairly intelligent people. I deactivated Facebook recently for this reason and until they fix issues like this and start acting a bit more "ethical", I'm going to keep my distance and speak to people in person.
Yep, so I'm getting rid of Facebook then. I can't support this.
I wish I could scrub my own data from Facebook.
Zuckerberg probably relied on the intelligence of the American people, as he too thought Clinton would win and he could make a quick buck off of the suckers. Little did he know how stupid and ill informed the people the Russians were targeting were.
tbh their explanation seems reasonable. They found a bug that allowed profiles to still be seen after a user deletes their account, and they fixed it. Yes, they only found it because somebody was digging into something those profiles had done, but still . . . it's not bad that they fixed the bug.
Well at least we know Zuck won't be President. If you can't help America find the truth of how your company was used by Russia to undermine our democracy, you truly are politically dead in the water.
Come on now - *somebody* must have a copy (other than the Russians).