Items tagged with: tool
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19690812
Posted by hprotagonist (karma: 7251)
Post stats: Points: 136 - Comments: 73 - 2019-04-18T13:27:58Z
#HackerNews #discovery #drug #for #halting #ibm #sales #tool #watson
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 115 - Loop: 391 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 55
a tool for thinking in systems
Article word count: 127
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19498073
Posted by 4684499 (karma: 358)
Post stats: Points: 119 - Comments: 9 - 2019-03-27T03:58:43Z
#HackerNews #2017 #for #loopy #systems #thinking #tool
In a world filled with ever-more-complex technological, sociological, ecological, political & economic systems... a tool to make interactive simulations may not be that much help. But it can certainly try.
play with simulations
Itʼs the ancient, time-honored way of learning: messing around and seeing what happens. Play with simulations to ask "what if" questions, and get an intuition for how the system works!
programming by drawing
Raw code is too inaccessible. Also drag-and-drop is too mainstream. But with LOOPY, you can model systems by simply drawing circles & arrows, like a wee baby
remix othersʼ simulations
Want to build upon your friendsʼ models? Or challenge your enemiesʼ models? LOOPY lets you have a conversation with simulations! You can go from thinking in systems, to talking in systems.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 82 - Loop: 91 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 18
Meet Iodide, an experimental open source tool to help scientists write beautiful interactive documents using web technologies, all within a browser-based iterative workflow that will be familiar to…
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19383863
Posted by pablobaz (karma: 734)
Post stats: Points: 123 - Comments: 7 - 2019-03-13T21:13:09Z
#HackerNews #data #experimental #exploration #for #iodide #mozilla #the #tool #web
In the last 10 years, there has been an explosion of interest in “scientific computing” and “data science”: that is, the application of computation to answer questions and analyze data in the natural and social sciences. To address these needs, we’ve seen a renaissance in programming languages, tools, and techniques that help scientists and researchers explore and understand data and scientific concepts, and to communicate their findings. But to date, very few tools have focused on helping scientists gain unfiltered access to the full communication potential of modern web browsers. So today we’re excited to introduce Iodide, an experimental tool meant to help scientists write beautiful interactive documents using web technologies, all within an iterative workflow that will be familiar to many scientists.
Exploring the Lorenz attractor then examining the code in Iodide
Iodide in action.
Beyond being just a programming environment for creating living documents in the browser, Iodide attempts to remove friction from communicative workflows by always bundling the editing tool with the clean readable document. This diverges from IDE-style environments that output presentational documents like .pdf files (which are then divorced from the original code) and cell-based notebooks which mix code and presentation elements. In Iodide, you can get both a document that looks however you want it to look, and easy access to the underlying code and editing environment.
Iodide is still very much in an alpha state, but following the internet aphorism “If you’re not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late”, we’ve decided to do a very early soft launch in the hopes of getting feedback from a larger community. We have a demo that you can try out right now, but expect a lot of rough edges (and please don’t use this alpha release for critical work!). We’re hoping that, despite the rough edges, if you squint at this you’ll be able to see the value of the concept, and that the feedback you give us will help us figure out where to go next.
How we got to Iodide
Data science at Mozilla
At Mozilla, the vast majority of our data science work is focused on communication. Though we sometimes deploy models intended to directly improve a user’s experience, such as the recommendation engine that helps users discover browser extensions, most of the time our data scientists analyze our data in order to find and share insights that will inform the decisions of product managers, engineers and executives.
Data science work involves writing a lot of code, but unlike traditional software development, our objective is to answer questions, not to produce software. This typically results in some kind of report — a document, some plots, or perhaps an interactive data visualization. Like many data science organizations, at Mozilla we explore our data using fantastic tools like Jupyter and R-Studio. However, when it’s time to share our results, we cannot usually hand off a Jupyter notebook or an R script to a decision-maker, so we often end up doing things like copying key figures and summary statistics to a Google Doc.
We’ve found that making the round trip from exploring data in code to creating a digestible explanation and back again is not always easy. Research shows that many people share this experience. When one data scientist is reading through another’s final report and wants to look at the code behind it, there can be a lot of friction; sometimes tracking down the code is easy, sometimes not. If they want to attempt to experiment with and extend the code, things obviously get more difficult still. Another data scientist may have your code, but may not have an identical configuration on their machine, and setting that up takes time.
The virtuous cycle of data science work
The virtuous circle of data science work.
Why is there so little web in science?
3. as I’d discovered, there are very few scientific coding tools that enable fast iteration loop and also grant unfiltered access to the presentational capabilities in the browser.
These are very big challenges. But as I thought about it more, I began to think that working in a browser might have some real advantages for the kind of communicative data science that we do at Mozilla. The biggest advantage, of course, is that the browser has arguably the most advanced and well-supported set of presentation technologies on the planet, from the DOM to WebGL to Canvas to WebVR.
Thinking on the workflow friction mentioned above, another potential advantage occurred to me: in the browser, the final document need not be separate from the tool that created it. I wanted a tool designed to help scientists iterate on web documents (basically single-purpose web apps for explaining an idea)… and many tools we were using were themselves basically web apps. For the use case of writing these little web-app-documents, why not bundle the document with the tool used to write it?
By doing this, non-technical readers could see my nice looking document, but other data scientists could instantly get back to the original code. Moreover, since the compute kernel would be the browser’s JS engine, they’d be able to start extending and experimenting with the analysis code immediately. And they’d be able to do all this without connecting to remote computing resources or installing any software.
I started discussing the potential pros and cons of scientific computing in the browser with my colleagues, and in the course of our conversations, we noticed some other interesting trends.
WebAssembly makes it possible to run code at near-native speed in the browser.
The anatomy of Iodide
Iodide is a tool designed to give scientists a familiar workflow for creating great-looking interactive documents using the full power of the web platform. To accomplish that, we give you a “report” — basically a web page that you can fill in with your content — and some tools for iteratively exploring data and modifying your report to create something you’re ready to share. Once you’re ready, you can send a link directly to your finalized report. If your colleagues and collaborators want to review your code and learn from it, they can drop back to an exploration mode in one click. If they want to experiment with the code and use it as the basis of their own work, with one more click they can fork it and start working on their own version.
Read on to learn a bit more about some of the ideas we’re experimenting with in an attempt to make this workflow feel fluid.
The Explore and Report Views
Iodide aims to tighten the loop between exploration, explanation, and collaboration. Central to that is the ability to move back and forth between a nice looking write-up and a useful environment for iterative computational exploration.
When you first create a new Iodide notebook, you start off in the “explore view.” This provides a set of panes including an editor for writing code, a console for viewing the output from code you evaluate, a workspace viewer for examining the variables you’ve created during your session, and a “report preview” pane in which you can see a preview of your report.
Editing a Markdown code chunk in Iodideʼs Explore View
Editing a Markdown code chunk in Iodide’s explore view.
By clicking the “REPORT” button in the top right corner, the contents of your report preview will expand to fill the entire window, allowing you to put the story you want to tell front and center. Readers who don’t know how to code or who aren’t interested in the technical details are able to focus on what you’re trying to convey without having to wade through the code. When a reader visits the link to the report view, your code will runs automatically. if they want to review your code, simply clicking the “EXPLORE” button in the top right will bring them back into the explore view. From there, they can make a copy of the notebook for their own explorations.
Moving from Explore to Report View.
Moving from explore to report view.
Whenever you share a link to an Iodide notebook, your collaborator can always access to both of these views. The clean, readable document is never separated from the underlying runnable code and the live editing environment.
Live, interactive documents with the power of the Web Platform
Iodide documents live in the browser, which means the computation engine is always available. Whenever you share your work, you share a live interactive report with running code. Moreover, since the computation happens in the browser alongside the presentation, there is no need to call a language backend in another process. This means that interactive documents update in real-time, opening up the possibility of seamless 3D visualizations, even with the low-latency and high frame-rate required for VR.
Contributor Devin Bayly explores MRI data of his brain
Sharing, collaboration, and reproducibility
Building Iodide in the web simplifies a number of the elements of workflow friction that we’ve encountered in other tools. Sharing is simplified because the write-up and the code are available at the same URL rather than, say, pasting a link to a script in the footnotes of a Google Doc. Collaboration is simplified because the compute kernel is the browser and libraries can be loaded via an HTTP request like any webpage loads script — no additional languages, libraries, or tools need to be installed. And because browsers provide a compatibility layer, you don’t have to worry about notebook behavior being reproducible across computers and OSes.
To support collaborative workflows, we’ve built a fairly simple server for saving and sharing notebooks. There is a public instance at iodide.io where you can experiment with Iodide and share your work publicly. It’s also possible to set up your own instance behind a firewall (and indeed this is what we’re already doing at Mozilla for some internal work). But importantly, the notebooks themselves are not deeply tied to a single instance of the Iodide server. Should the need arise, it should be easy to migrate your work to another server or export your notebook as a bundle for sharing on other services like Netlify or Github Pages (more on exporting bundles below under “What’s next?”). Keeping the computation in the client allows us to focus on building a really great environment for sharing and collaboration, without needing to build out computational resources in the cloud.
Pyodide: The Python science stack in the browser
We thought this sounded daunting — that it would be an enormous project and that it would never deliver satisfactory performance… but two weeks later Mike Droettboom had a working implementation of Python running inside an Iodide notebook. Over the next couple months, we added Numpy, Pandas, and Matplotlib, which are by far the most used modules in the Python science ecosystem. With help from contributors Kirill Smelkov and Roman Yurchak at Nexedi, we landed support for Scipy and scikit-learn. Since then, we’ve continued adding other libraries bit by bit.
Matplotlib running in the browser
Running Matplotlib in the browser enables its interactive features, which are unavailable in static environments
Of course, there’s a lot more to say about Pyodide, and it deserves an article of its own — we’ll go into more detail in a follow up post next month.
Just as in Jupyter and R’s R-Markdown mode, in Iodide you can interleave code and write-up as you wish, breaking your code into “code chunks” that you can modify and run as a separate units. Our implementation of this idea parallels R Markdown and MATLAB’s “cell mode”: rather than using an explicitly cell-based interface, the content of an Iodide notebook is just a text document that uses a special syntax to delimit specific types of cells. We call this text format “JSMD”.
We’ve found this format to be quite convenient. It makes it easy to use text-oriented tools like diff viewers and your own favorite text editor, and you can perform standard text operations like cut/copy/paste without having to learn shortcuts for cell management. For more details you can read about JSMD in our docs.
It’s worth repeating that we’re still in alpha, so we’ll be continuing to improve overall polish and squash bugs. But in addition to that, we have a number of features in mind for our next round of experimentation. If any of these ideas jump out as particularly useful, let us know! Even better, let us know if you’d like to help us build them!
Enhanced collaborative features
As mentioned above, so far we’ve built a very simple backend that allows you to save your work online, look at work done by other people, and quickly fork and extend existing notebooks made by other users, but these are just the initial steps in a useful collaborative workflow.
The next three big collaboration features we’re looking at adding are:
1. Google Docs-style comment threads
2. The ability to suggest changes to another user’s notebook via a fork/merge workflow similar to Github pull requests
3. Simultaneous notebook editing like Google Docs.
At this point, we’re prioritizing them in roughly that order, but if you would tackle them in a different order or if you have other suggestions, let us know!
We’ve spoken to folks from the R and Julia communities about compiling those languages to WebAssembly, which would allow their use in Iodide and other browser-based projects. Our initial investigation indicates that this should be doable, but that implementing these languages might be a bit more challenging than Python. As with Python, some cool workflows open up if you can, for example, fit statistical models in R or solve differential equations in Julia, and then display your results using browser APIs. If bringing these languages to the web interests you, please reach out — in particular, we’d love help from FORTRAN and LLVM experts.
Export notebook archive
Early versions of Iodide were self-contained runnable HTML files, which included both the JSMD code used in the analysis, and the JS code used to run Iodide itself, but we’ve moved away from this architecture. Later experiments have convinced us that the collaboration benefits of having an Iodide server outweigh the advantages of managing files on your local system. Nonetheless, these experiments showed us that it’s possible to take a runnable snapshot of an Iodide notebook by inling the Iodide code along with any data and libraries used by a notebook into one big HTML file. This might end up being a bigger file than you’d want to serve to regular users, but it could prove useful as a perfectly reproducible and archivable snapshot of an analysis.
Iodide to text editor browser extension
While many scientists are quite used to working in browser-based programming environments, we know that some people will never edit code in anything other than their favorite text editor. We really want Iodide to meet people where they are already, including those who prefer to type their code in another editor but want access to the interactive and iterative features that Iodide provides. To serve that need, we’ve started thinking about creating a lightweight browser extension and some simple APIs to let Iodide talk to client-side editors.
Feedback and collaboration welcome!
We’re not trying to solve all the problems of data science and scientific computing, and we know that Iodide will not be everyone’s cup of tea. If you need to process terabytes of data on GPU clusters, Iodide probably doesn’t have much to offer you. If you are publishing journal articles and you just need to write up a LaTeX doc, then there are better tools for your needs. If the whole trend of bringing things into the browser makes you cringe a little, no problem — there are a host of really amazing tools that you can use to do science, and we’re thankful for that! We don’t want to change the way anyone works, and for many scientists web-focused communication is beside the point. Rad! Live your best life!
But for those scientists who do produce content for the web, and for those who might like to do so if you had tools designed to support the way you work: we’d really love to hear from you!
Please visit iodide.io, try it out, and give us feedback (but again: keep in mind that this project is in alpha phase — please don’t use it for any critical work, and please be aware that while we’re in alpha everything is subject to change). You can take our quick survey, and Github issues and bug reports are very welcome. Feature requests and thoughts on the overall direction can be shared via our Google group or Gitter.
If you’d like to get involved in helping us build Iodide, we’re open source on Github. Iodide touches a wide variety of software disciplines, from modern frontend development to scientific computing to compilation and transpilation, so there are a lot of interesting things to do! Please reach out if any of this interests you!
Huge thanks to Hamilton Ulmer, William Lachance, and Mike Droettboom for their great work on Iodide and for reviewing this article.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 84 - Loop: 179 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 78
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19315273
Posted by twodayslate (karma: 1336)
Post stats: Points: 144 - Comments: 69 - 2019-03-05T23:41:39Z
#HackerNews #available #engineering #ghidra #now #nsas #public #reverse #the #tool
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 119 - Loop: 31 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 33
Job Number 190019
The #tool is used to safely pull the intermediary wheel off the back. It has two fingers on one side and one on the other. The wheel has 5 spokes, or arms, so the side of the tool with two fingers can straddle an arm on one side when lifting it off by the hub.
This extra wheel is unique to this movement. It transfers motion from the 4th wheel to the center for the sweep seconds hand. The 4th wheel is where you see that separate sub-seconds dial on a typical vintage watches.
Follow the album here:
More about these unique watches here:
#Elgin #pocketwatch #elgintime #190019 et #doctorsWatch #watchmaking
Last May, Facebook promised to create a “Clear History” function it said would give users more control over their data. Nine months later it's nowhere to be found and sources say it's a key example of…
Article word count: 3577
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19225494
Posted by jmsflknr (karma: 1277)
Post stats: Points: 239 - Comments: 64 - 2019-02-22T14:20:14Z
#HackerNews #ago #almost #clear #history #mark #promised #tool #where #year #zuckerberg
Facebook spent most of 2018 embroiled in one scandal or another. But there was a point early on in the year when Mark Zuckerberg thought he could turn down the heat by offering a fix for the public’s privacy concerns. It was just weeks after the news broke that political consultancy Cambridge Analytica had surreptitiously obtained and employed the personal data of millions of people. And as the company headed into its annual F8 developers conference in May, the chief executive proposed a dramatic change ahead of a rehearsal for the keynote address: What if they announced a tool that let users clear web-browsing information that Facebook uses to target users with ads?
The suggestion caught people involved in the event’s production, where planning begins at least six months in advance, off guard. “Clear History" didn’t exist; it was barely an idea. But organizers still scrambled to build its announcement into Zuckerbergʼs F8 keynote address. Theyʼd already scrapped plans to unveil Portal, a video calling device that Facebookʼs leadership thought might be seen as too invasive given the company’s predicament.
It was a bold public relations play. And for those familiar with the origins of the Clear History announcement, it demonstrated not only Zuckerberg’s unilateral power over product direction, but also Facebook’s long history of prioritizing optics and convenience over substantive protections for the people who use it. Company sources who spoke to BuzzFeed News characterized Zuckerberg’s proposal as “reactionary,” a response intended to ease the negative attention on the company following the Cambridge Analytica firestorm. They also said it might explain why the Clear History tool, whose announcement was proposed on the fly by Zuckerberg, is still not available nearly a year after he introduced it on stage at F8.
“If you watch the presentation, we really had nothing to show anyone,” said one person, who was close to F8. “Mark just wanted to score some points.”
Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg do not make judgment calls “until pressure is applied,” said another former employee, who worked closely its leadership and declined to be named for fear of retribution. “That pressure could come from the press or regulators, but they’re not keen on decision-making until they’re forced to do so.”
“Whether it is with genocide or false news, there are never going to be changes until the pressure becomes too great,” they added.
Facebook has long portrayed itself as an advocate for user rights. But former employees and critics say the companyʼs true ethos has often been in opposition to this. Facebookʼs communications around privacy have historically been opportunistic and protectionist, deployed to cover up for the last transgression from its "move fast and break things" ideology — from the 2007 Beacon program, which allowed companies to track purchases by Facebook users without their consent, to the 2010 loophole that allowed advertisers to access people’s personal Facebook information without permission.
“Sometimes we move too fast — and after listening to recent concerns, weʼre responding,” Zuckerberg wrote in 2010 op-ed in the Washington Post. That was just before the company agreed to a Federal Trade Commission consent decree, which charged that Facebook had routinely changed users’ privacy settings in order to obtain their information. The company is currently negotiating with the FTC, which has been investigating whether or not Facebook violated the terms of that consent decree and should be punished.
Last spring, as Facebook dealt with fallout from Cambridge Analytica, compliance with Europe’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and renewed attention on how it tracks all internet users following Zuckerberg’s ten hours of congressional testimony in April, the company’s ask-forgiveness-not-permission playbook was in plain view. It took out full-page newspaper apologies, placed its cheif executive on podcasts and televised interviews, and sent Sandberg to meet with state attorneys general and lawmakers behind closed doors.
“My worry is that Facebook is doing anything it can to garner goodwill and diffuse concern,” said Ashkan Soltani, the FTC’s chief technologist from October 2014 to November 2015. “I’m not sure of the sincerity of those actions since, historically, the company uses privacy selectively and strategically.”
Five former employees who spoke with BuzzFeed News say they are skeptical of that goodwill effort, with three noting that the external messaging and marketing around privacy has only become a focus for executives during the last 12 months. One pointed out that an international ad campaign last spring, focused on how “fake news” and “clickbait” “is not your friend,” was quickly repurposed to address “data misuse” days after the first Cambridge Analytica stories broke. Two highlighted Zuckerberg’s desire to rush out a Clear History announcement ahead of F8. Some ridiculed the company’s privacy pop-up store in New York City’s Bryant Park in December, which was built to show that “privacy is the foundation of our company.”
“It’s public relations,” said one former employee. “It’s, ‘Hey, look at this shiny thing, please don’t pay attention to this mushroom cloud.’” This also appears to be the case with Clear History, which, while touted by both Sandberg and Zuckerberg in recent months as an example of Facebook’s commitment to getting privacy right, has yet to actually launch.
Facebook disagreed with the characterization that privacy promises are used to distract from the real problems.
“We know we have work to do to regain peopleʼs trust, and itʼs why weʼve strengthened our teams, created a new privacy and data use organization, built new tools, and set clearer policies designed to better protect peopleʼs information,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. “We still face legitimate scrutiny, but we’re not the same company we were even a year ago, and we’re determined to do more to keep people safe across our services.”
Former employees, however, are not willing to give the company the benefit of the doubt.
“They have a long-running strategy of using communications to disagree and push this counter-narrative against any criticism,” one said. “They’re playing the same game they’ve always played, but the challenge for them is that the world has changed and privacy concerns are increasing dramatically.”
With his company staring down what could reportedly be a multibillion-dollar fine from the FTC for violating its 2011 consent decree, Zuckerberg is acutely aware of what public perception around privacy could do to Facebook’s business. In its 2018 annual report, the company outlined not only the risks associated with changing privacy laws including GDPR and the recently passed California Consumer Privacy Act, which the company lobbied against, but also the danger of becoming the media’s punching bag if news outlets dug into Facebook’s practices around data use and sharing.
“Unfavorable publicity regarding, for example, our privacy practices, terms of service, product changes, product quality, litigation or regulatory activity, government surveillance, the actions of our advertisers, the actions of our developers whose products are integrated with our products ... has in the past, and could in the future, adversely affect our reputation,” the company stated in a January financial filing. The statement goes on to outline the “intense media coverage” surrounding Cambridge Analytica and the possibility of negative publicity to adversely affect the company’s size, engagement, user loyalty, and, in turn, revenue.
While Facebook continues to grow — its sales, profit, and monthly active users (MAU) all increased in 2018 — there are plenty of signs that it may not be able to continue on the path. Multiple surveys have shown that users are losing trust in the social network, including one where the company ranked last among brands including Amazon, Google, Visa, and Comcast that handle personal data. And that mistrust could translate to unrest among investors.
“The list of problems the company is grappling with is vast, including complicity in a genocide, enabling social and political instability in different countries around the world, the unwitting sharing of consumer data and antagonized legislators in the US, the UK, Europe and beyond,” Pivotal Research’s Brian Wieser, one of the more bearish Facebook analysts, wrote in a January report.
One former employee noted that Facebook’s executives historically only took privacy seriously if problems affected the key metrics of daily active users, which totaled 1.52 billion accounts in December, or monthly active users, which totaled 2.32 billion accounts. Both figures increased by about 9% year-over-year in December.
“If it came down to user privacy or MAU growth, Facebook always chose the latter,” the person said. That source pointed to internal Facebook emails obtained and released by a UK parliamentary inquiry that showed, among other things, the company’s then–deputy chief privacy officer Yul Kwon discussing how to allow Facebook’s Android app to read a phone’s call logs without triggering a permission pop-up.
Ironically, Facebook’s leaders were worried about the public relations scenario that could have occurred if Android’s permissions did appear, as they were intended, to ask users to consent to the app reading their call logs. Instead of asking for less access, however, they sought a workaround so that they could still suck up the data without making people aware that they were doing so.
“This is a pretty high risk thing to do from a PR perspective but it appears that the growth team will charge ahead and do it,” one Facebook employee, Michael LeBeau, wrote in early 2015. “We think the risk of PR fallout here is high.”
The fallout, however, came more than three years after those emails, after UK parliamentarians obtained them and used them to bolster their case that Facebook operated as a “digital gangster” with little regard for law or scrutiny in a report earlier this month.
“It is evident that Facebook intentionally and knowingly violated both data privacy and anti-competition laws,” the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) Committee wrote in what is perhaps the strongest rebuke of the company by a governing body to date.
Two people who used to work at Facebook said that it’s hard to take the company’s apologies and commitments to privacy seriously after witnessing its attempt to get ahead of outlets preparing to publish stories about Cambridge Analytica. Last March, the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Observer were readying stories about a former employee at the political consulting firm who had evidence that Cambridge Analytica had illicitly obtained data on millions of Facebook users and deployed that information for American political campaigns.
The outlets, according to multiple people familiar with the situation, had been in communication with Facebook about their stories for at least a week, and the company’s public relations team was well-aware that the pieces would be published on the weekend. In response, Facebook’s communications team decided to get ahead of the stories, publishing a blog post from the company’s deputy general counsel the preceding Friday about suspending accounts associated with Cambridge Analytica.
“We were essentially scooping the news,” one source said, explaining that Facebook was trying to soften the blow of any future story on the matter.
Despite the attempt, the blog post, which was picked up by major news outlets, acted as an accelerant for the stories that would publish the next day. That, along with a legal threat sent to Guardian Media Group in the UK, compounded the attention and turned Cambridge Analytica into a full-blown maelstrom.
Three former employees who spoke to BuzzFeed News said that there are people at Facebook who do want to put the the social network’s users first. One acknowledged Facebook’s constant privacy scandals but attributed those mistakes to a “highly decentralized company” where issues arise “less because of an act of malice, and more as unintended consequences.” Another said there are “privacy purists who care about this deeply” but that “there is an equal number of people that looks at privacy as a lever to pull to improve user sentiment and, in turn, revenue.”
Zuckerberg’s thinking fluctuates between both camps, that person said, favoring privacy when he realizes his company’s actions have triggered a backlash.
Last April, technology news site TechCrunch found that Zuckerberg and other executives had been given “special treatment” by employing a tool that deleted old messages from both a sender’s and receiver’s mailboxes. Unlike Messenger for normal users, which retains messages indefinitely and gives users no option to delete old messages, Zuckerberg had been selectively eliminating threads from 2014 and earlier, sparking outrage among some employees who didn’t understand why their chief executive had a privacy feature that wasn’t available to all users.
Two sources recalled the backlash at an all-hands meeting, where several employees confronted the chief executive for secretly claiming special platform privileges that belied the company’s supposed internal dedication to transparency. In response, Zuckerberg told employees at the all-hands that the message deletion practice had come into effect because of the 2014 Sony Pictures hack to protect executives’ communications. A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the substance of internal discussions.
One source called the answer a “dodge” scripted by the company’s internal communications team, and noted Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy was in plain view: He protected his own privacy, while publicly diminishing privacy concerns that emerged in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Ever reactive, Facebook quickly announced plans to launch an “unsend message” tool, which would allow users to retract messages within 10 minutes of sending them. That feature, which is not at all the same thing as Zuckerberg’s ability to delete years-old messages, is now reportedly being tested in certain markets.
For one former employee, this incident highlights a systemic issue at a company that is worth more than $450 billion.
“I do think these problems have been traditionally viewed as communications, policy, and legal problems, not necessarily as core product challenges, and that’s likely why they’re in this problem,” the source said. “Ultimately when comms and policy and legal have been called on to solve an issue, it means that we’re already in a crisis.”
Other sources told BuzzFeed News that Facebook executives continue to view the problems of 2018 fundamentally as communication issues. They said some insiders among leadership and the rank and file could not understand how Facebook had become the focus of so much public ire and floated the idea that news publications, who had seen their business models decimated by Facebook and Google, had been directed to cover the company in a harsher light.
Last summer, the company invited a number of publications — including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and BuzzFeed News — for what one person called an off-the-record “media reset.” Executives including Sandberg, chief product officer Chris Cox, and augmented and virtual reality vice president Andrew “Boz” Bosworth met reporters and editors in an attempt to rebuild relationships with outlets that had been covering Facebook critically. (The author of this story learned of these talks independent of BuzzFeed News’ meeting with Facebook’s executives.)
Many of the former Facebook insiders who spoke with BuzzFeed News struggled to understand why there have been few management changes after that past year. “Certain leaders have been making bad calls,” one said, leaving the company in “crisis after crisis.” Yet aside from an executive shuffle where leaders were reorganized into different positions in May, few people, besides policy and communications head Elliot Schrage, have been shown the door. (And even Schrage still technically remains at the company in a special projects advisory role.)
“There’s an abdication of responsibility by the two at the top that runs deep — all the way down to junior leadership looking the other way,” another former employee said.
The UK’s DCMS committee agreed. “The management structure of Facebook is opaque to those outside the business and this seemed to be designed to conceal knowledge of and responsibility for specific decisions,” it wrote.
Late last year, Facebook decided to allay privacy concerns by hiring some of its biggest critics. In December, the company scooped up Nate Cardozo, formerly of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Robyn Greene, from New America’s Open Technology Institute; and Nathan White, of Access Now, a digital rights foundation.
“After the privacy beating Facebook’s taken over the last year, I was skeptical too,” Cardozo, who once called the company’s business model “creepy,” wrote in a Facebook post announcing his new position. “But the privacy team I’ll be joining knows me well, and knows exactly how I feel about tech policy, privacy, and encrypted messaging.”
“Hiring new people doesnʼt absolve Facebook for past bad practices, or guarantee future improvements,” Estelle Massé, a senior policy analyst for Access Now, wrote in an email to BuzzFeed News. “Given the legacy of Facebook’s policies and practices, it will be difficult to right this ship.”
Thus far, Facebook’s public discussions of Clear History appear to have been more about communications strategy than charting a new course. In a Facebook post looking back on 2018, Zuckerberg pointed to the tool as one that would “give people more transparency” while Sandberg highlighted it to show Facebook’s willingness to change during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month.
Still, nine months after its initial announcement, Clear History is nowhere to be found. A Facebook executive conceded in a December interview with Recode that “it’s taking longer than we initially thought” due to issues with how data is stored and processed. The company will now reportedly start testing the tool in the spring led by a new privacy product unit Zuckerberg created last May amid various scandals.
“We want to make sure this works the way it should for everyone on Facebook, which is taking longer than expected,” the company said in a statement to BuzzFeed News.
It’s unclear if new high-profile hires, like Cardozo and Greene, will work with Facebook’s new privacy unit or if they will be involved with Clear History. (Zuckerberg did say last May that the company would be working with “privacy advocates” on its new tool to “make sure we get it right.”) It has reached out to groups like Access Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), as well as academics.
Sources confirmed that CDT and EFF were advising Facebook on its Clear History tool, but could not disclose specifics of their meetings due to nondisclosure agreements. Access Now’s Massé confirmed Facebook had reached out on a number of issues, including Clear History, in the last few months, but called the conversations “punctual and limited.”
“Despite repeated statements and apologies from the company, we are not seeing a shift in Facebook data practices or an attitude that would suggest that they take data protection seriously,” she said. “What we are seeing so far are reactionary measures in an attempt to sway public opinion, rather than a fundamental shift in the way the company considers users’ rights to privacy and data protection.”
Privacy experts also pushed back on the idea that Clear History could be a cure-all for Facebook’s privacy ails. For one, it’s still unclear what the tool will allow users to delete and, as the CDT’s Natasha Duarte notes, features like these don’t necessarily guarantee better privacy. “The tool may be able to delete information that Facebook holds about a user’s interaction with other websites, but inferences from those interactions may already be incorporated into Facebook’s algorithm,” she said.
For example, imagine if a user visited a site for Dyson vacuums and Facebook registered that interaction through a tracker. Clear History might let a user remove information about that Dyson site visit from Facebook’s servers, but if that information has already been collected and algorithmically processed into a preference for ads about other household cleaning products, clearing history doesnʼt mean much. As Duarte explained: “There could be a gap between what Facebook says it’s deleting and what it is actually deleting.”
Former insiders were also concerned about how much Facebook would emphasize or promote Clear History after launch, noting that past privacy features have sometimes been introduced with minimum functionality and high amounts of friction to possibly discourage users. One former employee cited a feature that allows users to download all their Facebook information, but noted that it was hard to find and created file formats that were hard to read and share. Another recalled how the company unveiled a tool for “Nearby Friends,” but required “an inordinate number of clicks” to turn off the feature, which then defaulted to only pausing a user’s involvement for a short period of time.
“It seemed like a douchey move, and it was unclear if it was a deliberate choice or poor design,” the employee said. (A Facebook spokesperson disagreed with these characterizations and said the company builds controls “so that people will be able to easily find and use them.”)
Given the last 12 months, Facebook has lost that benefit of the doubt, according to privacy experts, and Clear History may be too little, too late. Groups including Access Now and CDT are calling for policymakers to step in, and even the social network’s executives seem resigned to some type of eventual privacy law in the US.
“Facebook has made good on just about every opportunity to lower expectations that it would protect user privacy without a government forcing it to,” Massé told BuzzFeed News. “It is high time for the US to adopt comprehensive data protection legislation to bring sectorwide safeguards for our personal information.”
The company’s track record speaks for itself, said Gennie Gebhart, a consumer privacy researcher at EFF. Gebhart, who’s been in discussions with Facebook about Clear History, noted that she maintains a certain skepticism that the company is capable of deeper change, and compared its past privacy promises to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
“They’re focused on solving the problem of needing to be seen like theyʼre doing something, rather than solving the actual problem,” she said. “And that needs to change.”●
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 180 - Loop: 132 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 88
#Akira #Linux #Design #Tool #UX/U #Web #Mobile #Sketch #Figma #Adobe XD #Open Source ##software #technology
Researchers of the Ecophysiology and Biotechnology group of the Universitat Jaume I (UJI) in Castellón, Spain, have taken part in a study that reveals how agricultural biodiversity is an effective tool for combatting plagues and the effects that climate change has on crops.