facebook com m

Advertising agencies have revealed the details of a proposed settlement with Facebook that would end a class action alleging the social. Facebook's new virtual assistant, M, can make restaurant reservations, buy a birthday present for your spouse, or book a weekend getaway. Facebook has started to roll out a beta update of its Messenger app for Windows 11 and Windows 10. The beta update takes the app up to.

Facebook com m -

Facebook fined $70M for flouting Giphy order made by UK watchdog

Facebook — or whatever name the tech giant picks for a reportedly looming rebrand of its data-mining empire as it seeks to teleport its business into the metaverse to escape the unending cavalcade of toxic publicity its execs generate — has a new “bad behavior” badge to sport: It’s just been fined nearly $70 million (£50.5 million) by a U.K. watchdog for deliberately withholding information related to ongoing antitrust oversight of its acquisition of Giphy.

It’s the first time the U.K.’s competition watchdog has found a company to have breached this type of order — by “consciously refusing to report all the required information”, as it puts it.

So that looks like an epic win for Facebook’s current PR strategy of not giving two f***s what anyone else thinks of it.

The tech giant has also, of course, recently acquired an expensive taste in self-configured “accountability apparatus” (aka the self-styled “Facebook Oversight Board”) — which may have caused it some confusion over its legal requirements to comply with actual oversight bodies that exist within democratic societies.

But that might be a too generous an interpretation of what Facebook is doing here.

The back story is that the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been scrutinizing Facebook’s acquisition of the animated GIF repository for well over a year now. But back in April, a new, in-depth phase of the probe was announced — after the regulator found concrete reasons to be concerned that Facebook owning Giphy would further reduce competition in the (already Facebook-dominated) digital advertising market.

In a statement at the time, a faceless Facebook spokesperson claimed the tech giant would “continue to fully cooperate with the CMA’s investigation”. However it turns out even that Facebook claim was fake.

Per the CMA, Facebook has failed to follow the standard oversight process — failing to provide the regulator with required information related to an initial enforcement order (IEO) placed on it by the watchdog, despite repeated requests for it to do so.

Facebook’s actions are such that they have led the CMA to conclude that non-compliance was deliberate. Hence the meaty penalty for what the CMA describes as a “major” breach.

“This is the first time a company has been found by the CMA to have breached an IEO by consciously refusing to report all the required information,” it writes. “Given the multiple warnings it gave Facebook, the CMA considers that Facebook’s failure to comply was deliberate. As a result, the CMA has issued a fine of £50 million for this major breach, which fundamentally undermined its ability to prevent, monitor and put right any issues.”

The tech giant was also criticised last year by the Competition Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal over its lack of cooperation with the CMA — with judges calling it out over what they suggested “might be regarded as a high-risk strategy” in relation to not complying with the IEO and not keeping the CMA updated as the order required.

An IEO is intended to place a freeze on any further integration and ensure companies can continue to compete against each other in situations where an acquisition that’s under antitrust scrutiny has already been completed, as is the case with the Facebook-Giphy buy.

Facebook has been under a CMA IEO order since June 2020 in relation to its purchase of Giphy. But the watchdog said today that the tech giant “significantly limited” the scope of required updates related to its compliance with the order.

The concern driving what looks like an unprecedented penalty from the CMA appears to be both Facebook’s conscious flouting of standard compliance requirements, and the risk of it doing that to conceal what it’s doing with Giphy — in order to carry out activity that could, for example, make it harder for the watchdog to order a full unwinding of the acquisition — which is one of a number of possible remedies it laid out this summer. (And which Facebook quickly denounced in a highly critical public response that also questioned the authority of the CMA to regulate the purchase at all.)

There’s another tidbit here too: The CMA has also issued a separate fine — stinging Facebook a further £500,000 for changing its chief compliance officer on two separate occasions without first seeking consent from the regulator.

Commenting on the action in a statement, Joel Bamford, senior director of mergers at the CMA, said: “We warned Facebook that its refusal to provide us with important information was a breach of the order but, even after losing its appeal in two separate courts, Facebook continued to disregard its legal obligations.”

“This should serve as a warning to any company that thinks it is above the law,” he added.

Explaining the IEO requirement Bamford also said: “Initial enforcement orders are a key part of the U.K.’s voluntary merger control regime. Companies are not required to seek CMA approval before they complete an acquisition but, if they decide to go ahead with a merger, we can stop the companies from integrating further if we think consumers might be affected and an investigation is needed.”

Facebook was contacted for a response to the CMA penalties — and in statement it criticized the action as “unfair”, claiming it had sought to take a “best effort compliance approach”.

“We strongly disagree with the CMA’s unfair decision to punish Facebook for a best effort compliance approach, which the CMA itself ultimately approved. We will review the CMA’s decision and consider our options,” said Facebook’s unnamed spokesperson.

The company also provided some “background” information that it said this was not for direct quoting or for attribution — so we won’t be publishing it.

Instead, here’s a GIF:

Источник: https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/20/facebook-fined-70m-for-flouting-giphy-order-made-by-uk-watchdog/

Custom Facebook Feed Pro

If you’ve used the “Connect a Facebook account” button in the plugin to authorize the Smash Balloon Facebook app but some of the Facebook pages which you are an admin of are not listed then this is usually caused by previously selecting to only allow the plugin to access certain pages that you manage.

To check this you will need to go to the plugin app settings within your Facebook account:

1) Log into your Facebook account and go to: Your Facebook Personal Profile > Settings & Privacy > Security and Login > Business integrations.

2) Find the app labeled “Smash Balloon WordPress” and click “View and edit”.

3) You can then select which of your Facebook pages you would like the plugin to be able to access.  Alternatively, you can disable the “Manage your Pages” option, and then the plugin will prompt you to allow the plugin to access you pages again when you configure the plugin.

4) Go the plugin’s Settings page again and use the “Connect a Facebook account” button again.

 

Using the Access Token tool

An alternative solution, if you want to use the token for a specific page but it isn’t showing up in the plugin, is to have another admin of that Facebook page use the tool on this page. They can then authorize our app and send you their page’s Access Token to add into the plugin settings.

Источник: https://smashballoon.com/doc/facebook-pages-im-admin-of-arent-listed-after-authorizing-plugin/

Facebook: Locked Out of Your Facebook Account?

Lesson 14: Locked Out of Your Facebook Account?

/en/facebook101/creating-a-facebook-page/content/

Locked out of your Facebook account?

There may be times when you go to sign in to Facebook but can't seem to remember the email address or password you used when creating your account. Luckily, Facebook makes it easy to recover your account information.

However, you will need some sort of information to recover your account, whether it's your email address, phone number, or name.

To recover your account information:

  1. Go to http://www.facebook.com and click Forgot account? below the sign-in fields.

    clicking Forgot account link

  2. Enter your email address, phone number, or full name in the form that appears, then click Search.
    typing the name Clark Whitwell and clicking search
  3. If you entered your full name, select your account from the list.
    clicking This is My Account button next to Clark Whitwell user
  4. Select Send code via SMS if you entered your phone number or Send code via email. Then click Continue.
    Selecting send code via email option
  5. A six-digit code will be sent to your email address or phone. Once you've received it, type the code into the form and click Continue.
    typing security code
  6. A new page will appear. Type a new password into the New Password form, then click Continue.
    typing a strong password and clicking continue button
  7. Your password will be changed.

If you’ve tried these methods and still can’t get in to your account, we’ve found this page to be the most helpful in getting Facebook issues resolved.

/en/facebook101/facebook-news/content/

Источник: https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/facebook101/locked-out-of-your-facebook-account/1/

After seven years of funding their Gemini cryptocurrency empire out of pocket, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss are in the process of signing the last documents on their first round of capital, a $400 million investment that values the New York parent company, Gemini Space Station, LLC, at $7.1 billion. If the epic competition between the twins and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a tortoise vs. hare scenario, now is starting to look like the moment momentum shifts.

Led by capital management giant Morgan Creek Digital, with participation from decentralized finance venture firm ParaFi Capital, and others, the investment sets the stage for a possible final showdown between more than just the twins and their archrival, Zuckerberg, but between the very idea of so-called Walled Gardens, where companies like Facebook own and profit from user data, and a free, open-source future.

Setting the stage for the clash, last month dozens of blockchain startups raised a total of more than $4 billion to chip away at the exterior defenses of these Walled Gardens by building a virtual, holographic, augmented reality version of the internet, called the metaverse, that anyone can build on (and monetize) while Facebook, Epic Games and other Big Tech giants prepare a counterattack to ensure that the billions of people already creating value for their firms’ shareholders continue to do so.

“There’s these two parallel paths, in terms of technology right now,” says Cameron Winklevoss, 40, speaking from his home in California. “There's a centralized path, like Facebook or Fortnite, that is one step away from being a metaverse, and that’s totally fine. But there is another path, which is the decentralized metaverse and that's the metaverse where we believe there's greater choice, independence and opportunity, and there is technology that protects the rights and dignity of individuals.”

As part of the capital raise that roughly equates to a Series D, New York-based Morgan Creek contributed $75 million and general partner Sachin Jaitly became the third member of Gemini’s board of directors. The other board members are Tyler and Cameron. Other investors expected to participate in what would be the fourth-largest capital raise in crypto history include rapper and tycoon Jay-Z’s Marcy Venture Partners, former Disney chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg’s WnderCo, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, private equity firm 10T, family office advisory Newflow Partners, as well as United Talent Agency, Jane Street, K5 Global, Pantera, VanEck and BoostVC, among others. 

The brothers are expected to retain 75% ownership in the company after the investment, and their combined net wealth will nearly double from $6 billion in April to $10 billion today. 

This is not the first time the brothers have dueled with Zuckerberg. Raised in Greenwich, Connecticut, the 2008 Olympic rowers skyrocketed to fame in 2010, when Columbia Pictures released The Social Network, a film by David Fincher, telling the story of how they hired classmate Mark Zuckerberg to build a social network for university students. After a protracted legal battle that largely focused on the question of who founded Facebook, the brothers settled in 2011 for what at the time seemed like a paltry $65 million in Facebook stock and cash. In 2013, they spent about $11 million to buy what at the time was estimated to be 1% of all bitcoin in existence. Parlaying their newfound passion into a licensed exchange in what has become known as the Wild West of cryptocurrency, they distinguished themselves by luring accredited and institutional investors looking to follow the letter of the law. 

Seven years later, New York-based Gemini’s annual revenue has increased 600% since last year and a company spokesperson says it is on track to be profitable by the end of this year. While they are not sharing the actual revenue numbers, they say the largest segment comes from the Gemini cryptocurrency exchange, which charges active traders 0.6% for transactions less than $500,000, and less for larger amounts; 0.4% on $30 billion in assets under custody, and an average of about a 1% fee to borrow 40 different cryptocurrencies, among other sources. Cameron says the 600-person firm with offices in London and Singapore will have 1,000 employees by next year. 

This is where history starts to repeat itself. In a seeming slight to the brothers’ astrologically named firm, their former employee at Harvard, Zuckerberg, launched Libra, his own attempt to capitalize on bitcoin’s underlying blockchain technology in 2019. A consortium of potential cryptocurrency users, including MasterCard, PayPal, Stripe and Visa, briefly committed to building technology that would peg the libra cryptocurrency to a basket of national currencies, including the U.S. dollar and the British pound. Shortly after the announcement, however, the group largely disbanded, following U.S. lawmakers’ apprehension over the initiative led by a firm that so controversially sold influence over its users’ behavior. 


Click here to subscribe to the Forbes Crypto Assets and Blockchain Advisor newsletter.


Months after Zuckerberg launched Libra, Tyler and Cameron again blazed a trail destined to be followed by the Walled Garden kingpin. In Act 3 of the story, on which the curtain rose in November 2019, the brothers bought non-fungible token (NFT) exchange Nifty Gateway, a marketplace for the then nearly unknown assets that now form the building blocks of the metaverse by helping value accumulate to otherwise easily copied digital objects. Since the acquisition, when the industry was conducting fewer than $2 million in volume over a 30-day period, according to data site, NonFungible.com, it has exploded to a high of $3.7 billion over 30 days in September and $1.8 billion today.

Ironically, for founders who claim to be building a world beyond Walled Gardens, Nifty follows a similar path to Gemini’s, which sought to build crypto investing services for compliant investors, by deeply vetting the NFT creators allowed on-site. “Decentralization is a spectrum,” says Cameron. “We want to continue to move down the spectrum toward empowerment. But you have to start somewhere.” It turns out this philosophy is not without its risks. 

While the promise of trillions in institutional adoption continues to remain their North Star, less discerning exchanges, frequently with fewer licenses, are so far winning the day. Gemini is only the 11th-largest exchange in the world on data site CoinGecko, and among those exchanges, relative newcomer FTX just raised $900 million at an eclipsing $18 billion valuation. Similarly, Nifty doesn’t even appear on many lists of the largest NFT exchanges, because much of its $420 million in total volume is done off-chain, making it impossible for third parties to aggregate—more like the discretion of Sotheby’s than the openness of eBay.

In addition to personal investments in the metaverse through Winklevoss Capital, more than half the newly launched Gemini Frontier Fund’s portfolio consists of firms related to the burgeoning space and an additional $35 million is set aside from the capital raise for future investments. Already, they’ve bought stakes in NFT firms Alethea AI, based in Singapore, and Recur, in Florida; Prague-based metaverse startup Somnium Space; and, in an early version of the metaverse, The Sandbox (SAND), being built by $2.2 billion Hong Kong-based Animoca Brands. Between October 27 and November 18 the price of SAND increased 413% to $3.94.

As part of The Sandbox deal the brothers also bought a plot of virtual land where they hope to build the first of many virtual locations, similar to a website but in three dimensions. “Instead of building brick-and-mortar bank branches in meatspace,” says Tyler, using the slang for the real world where we actually live, “we're gonna build a Gemini experience in different metaverses, where you can go into Gemini and trade, but it would be immersive instead of on your phone.”  

Instead of the ad-driven model that has proved so lucrative to social media companies (and fertile for misinformation and political influence), most metaverses will require tiny amounts of cryptocurrency, similar to “gas” used to run other decentralized applications. While revenue models will certainly proliferate, the more demand there is for these tokens, the higher the price, increasing the value of the very same currency the users now own and letting the wealth accumulate to users instead of shareholders.

Because the currency of these networks increases at a fixed rate and assets, like a new pair of digital shoes, a flaming sword, or one’s avatar, can be tracked and issued as non-fungible tokens on public, transparent blockchains, users have both increased certainty that the market for their digital possessions won’t be flooded and the freedom to take their NFTs elsewhere. Early blockchain competitors include Decentraland and The Sandbox, which run on Ethereum; Upland, which runs on the EOS blockchain; and Victoria VR, expected to launch soon on Ethereum and pivot to a blockchain of their own design.

If this all sounds a bit too much like science fiction, it’s well to remember that in addition to the billions of dollars raised in recent months, proven leaders in the existing massively multiplayer online gaming (MMOG) industry are also moving to the metaverse. Perhaps most notably, North Carolina-based Epic Games has already proved out a similar business model selling its centrally issued v-bucks digital currency to buy in-game accessories and weapons. In April Epic CEO Tim Sweeney revealed a $1 billion funding round to expand into the metaverse. The MMOG industry is expected to reach $55.7 billion by 2027, according to industry analysis site StrategyR and Sweeney called the metaverse a “multi-trillion”-dollar opportunity in a recent report.

Not to be outdone, Zuckerberg again followed his old college employers. In October 2021 he rebranded Facebook as Meta. While details are scarce, Zuckerberg appears to be once again following a similar path as Libra, which while releasing open code that anyone could build on, is restricted to only a few companies who are allowed to directly monetize the economy. In an open letter Zuckerberg declared that “the metaverse will not be created by one company. It will be built by creators and developers making new experiences and digital items that are interoperable and unlock a massively larger creative economy.” Microsoft, worth $2.5 trillion, and $731 billion Nvidia, quickly followed suit with their own metaverse visions. 

The difference between these and other efforts being led by truly open-source startups is that while Big Tech is trying to avoid obsolescence, the Winklevii are investing in startups that assume those companies are already redundant, according to Gemini’s newest board member, Sachin Jaitly. Jaitly previously invested in Mike Cagney’s crypto mortgage firm Figure and blockchain infrastructure provider Blockdaemon, and says that many are “missing the boat” of letting users own their own identities and move digital objects anywhere online. “There is something true and pure about having the authenticity and the originality of something. And whether it’s physical or virtual is irrelevant,” says Jaitly. “They're just missing what I think is going to be an enormous amount of value creation.”

While Zuckerberg continues to follow the Winklevii into industry after industry, the brothers earlier this year came full circle by making their first investment directly into a social network, and it seems that’s only the beginning. In September Winklevoss Capital participated in a $200 million investment in the DeSo (short for “decentralized social”) Blockchain.” Founder of social media giant Reddit, Alexis Ohanian, venture firm Andreessen Horowitz and about 44,000 other potential users also bought the token.

In an industry where reach is so directly correlated to value, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit and most other mainstream social networks have what seems to be an insurmountable lead. For now, they are the epitome of Walled Gardens. DeSo hopes to solve this problem by building a shared infrastructure on which anyone can create a social network of their own. There’s already 150 projects being built on the blockchain, including 8 social networks, and—you guessed it—a metaverse. “It's very easy to identify the problems with the existing networks and social spaces. But there haven’t been many solutions,” says Tyler. “We believe crypto offers that, so we'll continue to look at investing through Gemini Frontier, or maybe even building.”

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip. 

Источник: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2021/11/18/gemini-raises-400-million-to-protect-the-metaverse-from-meta-facebook/

Facebook Is Tracking Me Even Though I’m Not on Facebook

I don't use Facebook. I'm not technophobic — I'm a geek. I've been using email since the early 1990s, I have accounts on hundreds of services around the net, and I do software development and internet protocol design both for work and for fun. I believe that a globe-spanning communications network like the internet can be a positive social force, and I publish much of my own work on the open web.

But Facebook and other massive web companies represent a strong push toward unaccountable centralized social control, which I think makes our society more unequal and more unjust. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is one instance of this long-running problem with what I call the "surveillance economy." I don't want to submit to these power structures, and I don’t want my presence on such platforms to serve as bait that lures other people into the digital panopticon.

But while I've never "opted in" to Facebook or any of the other big social networks, Facebook still has a detailed profile that can be used to target me. I've never consented to having Facebook collect my data, which can be used to draw very detailed inferences about my life, my habits, and my relationships. As we aim to take Facebook to task for its breach of user trust, we need to think about what its capabilities imply for society overall. After all, if you do #deleteFacebook, you'll find yourself in my shoes: non-consenting, but still subject to Facebook’s globe-spanning surveillance and targeting network.

There are at least two major categories of information available to Facebook about non-participants like me: information from other Facebook users, and information from sites on the open web.

Information from other Facebook users

When you sign up for Facebook, it encourages you to upload your list of contacts so that the site can "find your friends." Facebook uses this contact information to learn about people, even if those people don't agree to participate. It also links people together based on who they know, even if the shared contact hasn't agreed to this use.

For example, I received an email from Facebook that lists the people who have all invited me to join Facebook: my aunt, an old co-worker, a friend from elementary school, etc. This email includes names and email addresses — including my own name — and at least one web bug designed to identify me to Facebook’s web servers when I open the email. Facebook records this group of people as my contacts, even though I've never agreed to this kind of data collection.

Similarly, I'm sure that I'm in some photographs that someone has uploaded to Facebook — and I'm probably tagged in some of them. I've never agreed to this, but Facebook could still be keeping track.

So even if you decide you need to join Facebook, remember that you might be giving the company information about someone else who didn't agree to be part of its surveillance platform.

Information from sites on the open Web

Nearly every website that you visit that has a "Like" button is actually encouraging your browser to tell Facebook about your browsing habits. Even if you don't click on the "Like" button, displaying it requires your browser to send a request to Facebook's servers for the "Like" button itself. That request includes information mentioning the name of the page you are visiting and any Facebook-specific cookies your browser might have collected. (See Facebook's own description of this process.) This is called a "third-party request."

This makes it possible for Facebook to create a detailed picture of your browsing history — even if you've never even visited Facebook directly, let alone signed up for a Facebook account.

Think about most of the web pages you've visited — how many of them don't have a "Like" button? If you administer a website and you include a "Like" button on every page, you're helping Facebook to build profiles of your visitors, even those who have opted out of the social network. Facebook’s “Share” buttons on other sites — along with other tools — work a bit differently from the “Like” button, but do effectively the same thing.

The profiles that Facebook builds on non-users don't necessarily include so-called "personally identifiable information" (PII) like names or email addresses. But they do include fairly unique patterns. Using Chromium's NetLog dumping, I performed a simple five-minute browsing test last week that included visits to various sites — but not Facebook. In that test, the PII-free data that was sent to Facebook included information about which news articles I was reading, my dietary preferences, and my hobbies.

Given the precision of this kind of mapping and targeting, "PII" isn’t necessary to reveal my identity. How many vegans examine specifications for computer hardware from the ACLU's offices while reading about Cambridge Analytica? Anyway, if Facebook combined that information with the "web bug" from the email mentioned above — which is clearly linked to my name and e-mail address — no guesswork would be required.

I'd be shocked if Facebook were not connecting those dots given the goals they claim for data collection:

We use the information we have to improve our advertising and measurement systems so we can show you relevant ads on and off our Services and measure the effectiveness and reach of ads and services.

This is, in essence, exactly what Cambridge Analytica did.

Consent

Facebook and other tech companies often deflect accusations against excessive data collection by arguing "consent" — that they harvest and use data with the consent of the users involved.

But even if we accept that clicking through a "Terms of Service" that no one reads can actually constitute true consent, even if we ignore the fact that these terms are overwhelmingly one-sided and non-negotiable, and even if we accept that it's meaningful for people to give consent when sharing data about other people who may have also opted in — what is the recourse for someone who has not opted into these systems at all?

Are those of us who have explicitly avoided agreeing to the Facebook terms of service simply fair game for an industry-wide surveillance and targeting network?

Privilege

I don’t mean to critique people who have created a Facebook profile or suggest they deserve whatever they get.

My ability to avoid Facebook comes from privilege — I have existing social contacts with whom I know how to stay in touch without using Facebook's network. My job does not require that I use Facebook. I can afford the time and expense to communicate with my electoral representatives and political allies via other channels.

Many people do not have these privileges and are compelled to "opt in" on Facebook's non-negotiable terms.

Many journalists, organizers, schools, politicians, and others who have good reasons to oppose Facebook's centralized social control feel compelled by Facebook's reach and scale to participate in their practices, even those we know to be harmful. That includes the ACLU.

Privacy should not be a luxury good, and while I'm happy to encourage people to opt out of these subtle and socially fraught arrangements, I do not argue that anyone who has signed up has somehow relinquished concerns about their privacy. We need to evaluate privacy concerns in their full social contexts. These are not problems that can be resolved on an individual level, because of the interpersonal nature of much of this data and the complexities of the tradeoffs involved.

Technical countermeasures

While they may not solve the problem, there are some technical steps people can take to limit the scope of these surveillance practices. For example, some web browsers do not send "third-party cookies" by default, or they scope cookies so that centralized surveillance doesn't get a single view of one user. The most privacy-preserving modern browser is the Tor Browser, which everyone should have installed and available, even if it's not the browser they choose to use every day. It limits the surveillance ability of systems that you have not signed up for to track you as you move around the web.

You can also modify some browsers — for example, with plug-ins for Firefox and Chrome — so that they do not send third-partyrequests at all. Firefox is also exploring even more privacy-preserving techniques.

It can’t be denied, though, that these tools are harder to use than the web browsers most people are accustomed to, and they create barriers to some online activities. (For example, logging in to some sites and accessing some web applications is impossible without third-party cookies.)

Some website operators take their visitors' privacy more seriously than others, by reducing the amount of third-party requests. For example, it's possible to display "share on Facebook" or "Like" buttons without sending user requests to Facebook in the first place. The ACLU's own website does this because we believe that the right to read with privacy is a fundamental protection for civic discourse.

If you are responsible for running a website, try browsing it with a third-party-blocking extension turned on. Think about how much information you're requiring your users to send to third parties as a condition for using your site. If you care about being a good steward of your visitors' data, you can re-design your website to reduce this kind of leakage.

Opting out?

Some advertisers claim that you can "opt out" of their targeted advertising, and even offer a centralized place meant to help you do so. However, my experience with these tools isn't a positive one. They don't appear to work all of the time. (In a recent experiment I conducted, two advertisers’ opt-out mechanisms failed to take effect.) And while advertisers claim to allow the user to opt out of "interest-based ads," it's not clear that the opt-outs govern data collection itself, rather than just the use of the collected data for displaying ads. Moreover, opting out on their terms requires the use of third-party cookies, thereby enabling another mechanism that other advertisers can then exploit.

It's also not clear how they function over time: How frequently do I need to take these steps? Do they expire? How often should I check back to make sure I’m still opted out? I'd much prefer an approach requiring me to opt in to surveillance and targeting.

Fix the surveillance economy, not just Facebook

These are just a few of the mechanisms that enable online tracking. Facebook is just one culprit in this online "surveillance economy," albeit a massive one — the company owns Instagram, Atlas, WhatsApp, and dozens of other internet and technology companies and services. But it’s not the only player in this space. Google’s business model also relies on this kind of surveillance, and there are dozens of smaller players as well.

As we work to address the fallout from the current storm around Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, we can't afford to lose sight of these larger mechanisms at play. Cambridge Analytica's failures and mistakes are inherent to Facebook's business model. We need to seriously challenge the social structures that encourage people to opt in to this kind of surveillance. At the same time, we also need to protect those of us who manage to opt out.

Источник: https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/facebook-tracking-me-even-though-im-not-facebook

Facebook fined $70M for flouting Giphy order made by UK watchdog

Facebook — or whatever name the tech giant picks for a reportedly looming rebrand of its data-mining empire as it seeks to teleport its business into the metaverse to escape the unending cavalcade of toxic publicity its execs generate — has a new “bad behavior” badge to sport: It’s just been fined nearly $70 million (£50.5 million) by a U.K. watchdog for deliberately withholding information related to ongoing antitrust oversight of its acquisition of Giphy.

It’s the first time the U.K.’s competition watchdog has found a company to have breached this type of order — by “consciously refusing to report all the required information”, as it puts it.

So that looks like an epic win for Facebook’s current PR strategy of not giving two f***s what anyone else thinks of it.

The tech giant has also, of course, recently acquired an expensive weather at kill devil hills in self-configured “accountability apparatus” (aka the self-styled “Facebook Oversight Board”) — which may have caused it some confusion over its legal requirements to comply with actual oversight bodies that exist within democratic societies.

But that might be a too generous an interpretation of what Facebook is doing here.

The back story is that the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been scrutinizing Facebook’s acquisition of the animated GIF repository for well over a year now. But back in April, a new, in-depth phase of the probe was announced — after the regulator found concrete reasons to be concerned that Facebook owning Giphy would further reduce competition in the (already Facebook-dominated) digital advertising market.

In a statement at the time, a faceless Facebook spokesperson claimed the tech giant would “continue to fully cooperate with the CMA’s investigation”. However it turns out even that Facebook claim was fake.

Per the CMA, Facebook has failed to follow the standard oversight process — failing to provide the regulator with required information related to an initial enforcement order (IEO) placed on it by the watchdog, despite repeated requests for it to do so.

Facebook’s actions are such that they have led the CMA to conclude that non-compliance was deliberate. Hence the meaty penalty for what the CMA describes as a “major” breach.

“This is the first time a company has been found by the CMA to have breached an IEO by consciously refusing to report all the required information,” it writes. “Given the multiple warnings it gave Facebook, the CMA considers that Facebook’s failure to comply was deliberate. As a result, the CMA has issued a fine of £50 million for this major breach, which fundamentally undermined its ability to prevent, monitor and put right any issues.”

The tech giant was also criticised last year by the Competition Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal over its mortgage loan credit union vs bank of cooperation with the CMA — with judges calling it out over what they suggested “might be regarded as a high-risk strategy” in relation to not complying with the IEO and not keeping the CMA updated as the order required.

An IEO is intended to place a freeze on any further integration and ensure companies can continue to compete against each other in situations where an acquisition that’s under antitrust scrutiny has already been completed, as is the case with the Facebook-Giphy buy.

Facebook has been under a CMA IEO order since June 2020 in relation to its purchase of Giphy. But the watchdog said today that the tech giant “significantly limited” the scope of required updates related to its compliance with the order.

The concern driving what looks like an unprecedented penalty from the CMA appears to be both Facebook’s conscious flouting of standard compliance requirements, and the risk of it doing that to conceal what it’s doing with Giphy — in order to carry out activity that could, for example, make it harder for the watchdog to order a full unwinding of the acquisition — which is one of a number of possible remedies it laid out this summer. (And which Facebook quickly denounced in a highly critical public response that also questioned the authority of the CMA to regulate the purchase at all.)

There’s another tidbit here too: The CMA has also issued a separate fine — stinging Facebook a further £500,000 for changing its chief compliance officer on two separate occasions without first seeking consent from the regulator.

Commenting on the action in a statement, Joel Bamford, senior director of mergers at the CMA, said: “We warned Facebook that its refusal to provide us with important information was a breach of the order but, even after losing its appeal in two separate courts, Facebook continued to disregard its legal obligations.”

“This should serve as a warning to any company that thinks it is above the law,” he added.

Explaining the IEO requirement Bamford also said: “Initial enforcement orders are a key part of the U.K.’s voluntary merger control regime. Companies are not required to seek CMA approval before they complete an acquisition but, if they decide to go ahead with a merger, we can stop the companies from integrating facebook com m if we think consumers might be affected and an investigation is needed.”

Facebook was contacted for a response to the CMA penalties — and in statement it criticized the action as “unfair”, claiming it had sought to take a “best effort compliance approach”.

“We strongly disagree with the CMA’s unfair decision to punish Facebook for a best effort compliance approach, which the CMA itself ultimately approved. We will review the CMA’s decision and consider our options,” said Facebook’s unnamed spokesperson.

The company also provided some “background” information that it said this was not for direct quoting or for attribution — so we won’t be publishing it.

Instead, here’s a GIF:

Источник: https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/20/facebook-fined-70m-for-flouting-giphy-order-made-by-uk-watchdog/

Facebook Is Tracking Me Even Though I’m Not on Facebook

I don't use Facebook. I'm not technophobic — I'm a geek. I've been using email since the early 1990s, I have accounts on hundreds of services around the net, and I do software development and internet protocol design both for work and for fun. I believe that a globe-spanning communications network like the internet can be a positive social force, and I publish much of my own work on the open web.

But Facebook and other massive web companies represent a strong push toward unaccountable centralized social control, which I think makes our hunting and fishing show rockland community college more unequal and more unjust. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is one instance of this long-running problem with what I call the "surveillance economy." I don't want to submit to these power structures, and I don’t want my presence on such platforms to serve as bait that lures other people into the digital panopticon.

But while I've never "opted in" to Facebook or any of the other big social networks, Facebook still has a detailed profile that can be used to target me. I've never consented to having Facebook collect my data, which can be used to draw very detailed inferences about my life, my habits, and my relationships. As we aim to take Facebook to task for its breach of user trust, we need to think about what its capabilities imply for society overall. After all, if you do #deleteFacebook, you'll find yourself in my shoes: non-consenting, but still subject to Facebook’s globe-spanning surveillance and targeting network.

There are at least two major categories of information available to Facebook about non-participants like me: information from other Facebook users, and information from sites on the open web.

Information from other Facebook users

When you sign up for Facebook, it encourages you to upload your list of contacts so that the site can "find your friends." Facebook uses this contact information to learn about people, even if those people don't agree to participate. It also links people together based on who they know, even if the shared contact hasn't agreed to this use.

For example, I received an email from Facebook that lists the people who have all invited me to join Facebook: my aunt, an old co-worker, a friend from elementary school, etc. This email includes names and email addresses — including my own name — and at least one web bug designed to identify me to Facebook’s web servers when I open the email. Facebook records this group of people as my contacts, even though I've never agreed to this kind of data collection.

Similarly, I'm sure that I'm in some photographs that someone has uploaded to Facebook — and I'm probably tagged in some of them. I've never agreed to this, but Facebook could still be keeping track.

So even if you decide you need to join Facebook, remember that you might be giving the company information about someone else who didn't agree to be part of its surveillance platform.

Information from sites on the open Web

Nearly every website that you visit that has a "Like" button is actually encouraging your browser to tell Facebook about your browsing habits. Even if you don't click on the "Like" button, displaying it requires your browser to facebook com m a request to Facebook's servers for the "Like" button itself. That request includes information mentioning the name of the page you are visiting and any Facebook-specific cookies your browser might have collected. (See Facebook's own description of this facebook com m This is called a "third-party request."

This makes it possible for Facebook to create a detailed picture of your browsing history — even if you've never even visited Facebook directly, let alone signed up for a Facebook account.

Think about most of the web pages you've visited — how many of them don't have a "Like" button? If you administer a website and you include a "Like" button on every page, you're helping Facebook to build profiles of your visitors, even those who have opted out of the social network. Facebook’s “Share” buttons on other sites — along with other tools — work a bit differently from the “Like” button, but do effectively the same thing.

The profiles that Facebook builds on non-users don't necessarily include so-called "personally identifiable information" (PII) like names or email addresses. But they do include fairly unique patterns. Using Chromium's NetLog dumping, I performed a simple five-minute browsing test last week that included visits to various sites — but not Facebook. In that test, the PII-free data that was sent to Facebook included information about which news articles I was reading, my dietary preferences, and my hobbies.

Given the precision of this kind of mapping and targeting, "PII" isn’t necessary to reveal my identity. How many vegans examine specifications for computer progressive home insurance bill pay from the ACLU's offices while reading about Cambridge Analytica? Anyway, if Facebook combined that information with the "web bug" from the email mentioned above — which is clearly linked to my name and e-mail address — no guesswork would be required.

I'd be shocked if Facebook were not connecting those dots given the goals they claim for data collection:

We use the information we have to improve our advertising and measurement systems so we can show you relevant ads on and off our Services and measure the effectiveness and reach of ads and services.

This is, in essence, exactly what Cambridge Analytica did.

Consent

Facebook and other tech companies often deflect accusations against excessive data collection by arguing "consent" — that they harvest and use data with the consent of the users involved.

But even if we accept that clicking through a "Terms of Service" that no one reads can actually constitute true consent, even if we ignore the fact that these terms are overwhelmingly one-sided and non-negotiable, and even if we accept that it's meaningful for people to give consent when sharing data about other people who may have also opted in — what is the recourse for someone who has not opted into these systems at all?

Are those of us who have explicitly avoided agreeing to the Facebook terms of service simply fair game for an industry-wide surveillance and targeting network?

Privilege

I don’t mean to critique people who have created a Facebook profile or suggest they deserve whatever they get.

My ability to avoid Facebook comes from privilege — I have existing social contacts with whom I know how to stay in touch without using Facebook's network. My job does not require that I use Facebook. I can afford the time and expense to communicate with my electoral representatives and political allies via other channels.

Many people do not have these privileges and are compelled to "opt in" on Facebook's non-negotiable terms.

Many journalists, organizers, schools, politicians, and others who have good reasons to oppose Facebook's centralized social control feel compelled by Facebook's reach and scale to participate in their practices, even those we know to be harmful. That includes the ACLU.

Privacy should not be a luxury good, and while I'm happy to encourage people to opt out of these subtle and socially fraught arrangements, I do not argue that anyone who has signed up has somehow relinquished concerns about their privacy. We need to evaluate privacy concerns in their full social contexts. These are not problems that can be resolved on an individual level, because of the interpersonal nature of much of this data and the complexities of the tradeoffs involved.

Technical countermeasures

While they may not solve the problem, there are some technical steps people can take to limit the scope of these surveillance practices. For example, some web browsers do not send "third-party cookies" by default, or they scope cookies so that centralized surveillance doesn't get a single view of one user. The most privacy-preserving modern browser is the Tor Browser, which everyone should have installed and available, even if it's not the browser they choose to use every day. It limits the surveillance ability of systems that you have not signed up for to track you as you move around the web.

You can also modify some browsers — for example, with plug-ins for Firefox and Chrome — so that they do not send third-partyrequests at all. Firefox is also exploring even more privacy-preserving techniques.

It can’t be denied, though, that these tools are harder to use than the web browsers most people are accustomed to, and they create barriers to some online activities. (For example, logging in to some sites and accessing some web applications is impossible without third-party cookies.)

Some website operators take their visitors' privacy more seriously than others, by reducing the amount of third-party requests. For example, it's possible to display "share on Facebook" or "Like" buttons without sending user requests to Facebook in the first place. The ACLU's own website does this because we believe that the right to read with privacy is a fundamental protection for civic discourse.

If you are responsible for running a website, try browsing it with a third-party-blocking extension turned on. Think about how much information you're requiring your users to send to third parties as a condition for using your site. If you care about being a good steward of your visitors' data, you can re-design your website to reduce this kind of leakage.

Opting out?

Some advertisers claim that you can "opt out" of their targeted advertising, and even offer a centralized place meant to help you do so. However, my experience with these facebook com m isn't a positive one. They don't appear to work all of the time. (In a recent experiment I conducted, two advertisers’ opt-out mechanisms failed to take effect.) And while advertisers claim to allow the user to opt out of "interest-based ads," it's not clear that the opt-outs govern data collection itself, rather than just the use of the collected data for displaying ads. Moreover, opting out on their terms requires the use of third-party cookies, thereby enabling another mechanism that other advertisers can then exploit.

It's also not clear how they function over time: How frequently do I need to take these steps? Do they expire? How often should I check back to make sure I’m still opted out? I'd much prefer an approach requiring me to opt in to surveillance and targeting.

Fix facebook com m surveillance economy, not just Facebook

These are just a few of the mechanisms that enable online tracking. Facebook is just one culprit in this online "surveillance economy," albeit a massive one — the company owns Instagram, Atlas, WhatsApp, and dozens of other internet and technology companies and services. But it’s not the only player in this space. Google’s business model also relies on this kind of surveillance, and there are dozens of smaller players as well.

As we work to address the fallout from the current storm around Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, we can't afford to lose sight of these larger mechanisms at play. Cambridge Analytica's failures and mistakes are inherent to Facebook's business model. We need to seriously challenge the social structures that encourage people to opt in to this kind of surveillance. At the same time, we also need to protect those of us who manage to opt out.

Источник: https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/facebook-tracking-me-even-though-im-not-facebook

Facebook: Locked Out of Your Facebook Account?

Lesson 14: Locked Out of Your Facebook Account?

/en/facebook101/creating-a-facebook-page/content/

Locked out of your Facebook account?

There may be times when you go to sign in to Facebook but can't seem to remember the email address or usaa commercial insurance phone number you used when creating your account. Luckily, Facebook makes it easy to recover your account information.

However, you will need some sort of information to recover your account, whether it's your email address, phone number, or name.

To recover your account information:

  1. Go to http://www.facebook.com and click Forgot account? below the sign-in fields.

    clicking Forgot account link

  2. Enter your email address, phone number, or full name in the form that appears, then click Search.
    typing the name Clark Whitwell and clicking search
  3. If you entered your full name, select your account from the list.
    clicking This is My Account button next to Clark Whitwell user
  4. Select Send code via SMS if you entered your phone number or Send code via email. Then click Continue.
    Selecting send code via email option
  5. A six-digit code will be sent to your email address or phone. Once you've received it, type the code into the form and click Continue.
    typing security code
  6. A new page will appear. Type a new password into the New Password form, then click Continue.
    typing a strong password and clicking continue button
  7. Your password will be changed.

If you’ve tried these methods and still can’t get in to your account, we’ve found this page to be the most helpful in getting Facebook issues resolved.

/en/facebook101/facebook-news/content/

Источник: https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/facebook101/locked-out-of-your-facebook-account/1/

At last — the full story of how Facebook was founded

US Markets Loading.HMS

young zuck
Jason McELweenie/Flickr

The origins of Facebook have been in dispute since the very how does a savings account work with interest a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg launched the site as a Harvard sophomore on February 4, 2004. 

Then called "thefacebook.com," the site was an instant hit. Now, six years later, the site has become one of the biggest web sites in the world, visited by 400 million people a month.

The controversy surrounding Facebook began quickly. A week after he launched the site in 2004, Mark was accused by three Harvard seniors of having stolen facebook com m idea from them. 

This allegation soon bloomed into account services telemarketing calls full-fledged lawsuit, as a competing company founded by the Harvard seniors sued Mark and Facebook for theft and fraud, starting a legal odyssey that continues to this day.

New information uncovered by Silicon Alley Insider suggests that some of the complaints against Mark Zuckerberg are valid. It also suggests that, on at least one occasion in 2004, Mark used private login data taken from Facebook's servers to break into Facebook members' private email accounts and read their emails — at best, a gross misuse of private information. Lastly, it suggests that Mark hacked into the competing company's systems and changed some user information with the aim of making the site less useful.

The primary dispute around Facebook's origins centered facebook com m whether Mark had entered into an "agreement" with the Harvard seniors, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and a classmate named Divya Narendra, to develop a similar web site for them — and then, instead, stalled their project while taking their idea and building his own.

The litigation never went particularly well for the Winklevosses.

In 2007, Massachusetts Judge Douglas P. Woodlock called their allegations "tissue thin." Referring to the  agreement that Mark had allegedly breached, Woodlock also wrote, "Dorm room chit-chat does not make a contract." A year later, the end finally seemed in sight: a judge ruled against Facebook's move to dismiss the case. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to settle.

But then, a twist.

After Facebook announced the settlement, but before the settlement was finalized, lawyers for the Winklevosses suggested that the hard drive from Mark Zuckerberg's computer at Harvard might contain evidence of Mark's fraud. Specifically, they suggested that the hard drive included some damning instant messages and emails.

The judge in the case refused to look at the hard drive and instead deferred to another judge who went on to approve the settlement. But, naturally, the possibility that the hard drive contained additional evidence set inquiring minds wondering what those emails and IMs revealed.  Specifically, it set inquiring minds wondering again whether Mark had, in fact, stolen the Winklevoss's idea, screwed them over, and then ridden off into the sunset with Facebook.

Unfortunately, since the contents of Mark's hard drive had not been made public, no one had the answers.

But now we have some.

Over the past two years, we have interviewed more than a dozen sources familiar with aspects of this story — including people involved in the founding year of the company. We have also reviewed what we believe to be some relevant IMs and emails from the period.  Much of this information has never before been made public.  None of it has been confirmed or authenticated by Mark or the company.

Based on the information we obtained, we have what we believe is a more complete picture of how Facebook was founded.  This account follows.

And what does this more complete story reveal?

We'll offer our own conclusions at the end.  But first, here's the story:

"We can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."

In the fall of 2003, Harvard seniors Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra were on the lookout for a web developer who could bring to life an idea the three say Divya first had in 2002: a social network for Harvard students and alumni. The site was to be called HarvardConnections.com.

The three had been paying Victor Gao, another Harvard student, to do coding for the site, but at the beginning of the fall term Victor begged off the project. Victor suggested his own replacement: Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard sophomore from Dobbs Ferry, New York.

Back then, Mark was known at Harvard as the sophomore who had built Facemash, a "Hot Or Not" clone for Harvard. Facemash had already made Mark a bit of a celebrity on campus, for two reasons.

The first is that Mark got in trouble for creating it. The way the site worked was that it pulled photos of Harvard students off of Harvard's Web sites. It rearranged these photos so that when people visited Facemash.com they would see pictures of two Harvard students and be asked to vote on which was more attractive. The site also maintained a list of Harvard students, ranked by attractiveness.

On Harvard's politically correct campus, this upset people, and Mark was soon hauled in front of Harvard's disciplinary board for students.  According to a November 19, 2003 Harvard Crimson article, he was charged with breaching security, violating copyrights, and violating individual privacy. Happily for Mark, the article reports that he wasn't expelled.

The second reason everyone at Harvard knew about Facemash and Mark Zuckerberg was that Facemash had been an instant hit. The same Harvard Crimson story reports that after two weeks, "the site had been visited by 450 people, who voted at least 22,000 times." That means the average visitor voted 48 times.

winklevoss twinsIt was for this ability to build a wildly popular site that Victor Gao first recommended Mark to Cameron, Tyler, and Divya. Sold on Mark, the Harvard Connection trio reached out to him. Mark agreed to meet.

They first met in an early evening in late November in the dining hall of Harvard College's Kirkland House.  Cameron, Tyler, and Divya brought up their idea for Harvard Connection, and described their plans to A) build the site for Harvard students only, by requiring new users to register with Harvard.edu email addresses, and B) expand Harvard Connection beyond Harvard to schools around the country.  Mark reportedly showed enthusiastic interest in the project.

Later that night, Mark wrote an email to the Winklevoss brothers and Divya: "I read over all the stuff you sent and it seems like it shouldn't take too long to implement, so we can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."

The next day, on December 1, Mark sent another email to the HarvardConnections team.  Part of it read, "I put together one of the two registration pages so I have everything working on my system now. I'll keep you posted as I patch stuff up and it starts to become completely functional."

These two emails sounded like the words of someone who was eager to be a part of the team and working away on the project.  A few days later, however, Mark's emails to the HarvardConnection team started to change in tone.  Specifically, they went from someone who seemed to be hard at work building the product to someone who was so busy with schoolwork that he had no time to do any coding at all.

December 4: "Sorry I was unreachable tonight. I just got about three of your missed calls. I was working on a problem set."

December 10: "The week has been pretty busy thus far, so I haven't gotten a chance to do much work on the site or even think about it really, so I think it's probably best to postpone meeting until we have more to discuss. I'm also really busy tomorrow so I don't think I'd be able to meet then anyway."

A week later: "Sorry I have not been reachable for the past few days. I've basically been in the lab the whole time working on a cs problem set which I"m still not finished with."

Finally, on January 8:

Sorry it's taken a while for me to get back to you. I'm completely swamped with work this week. I have three programming projects and a final paper due by Monday, as well as a couple of problem sets due Friday. I'll be available to discuss the site again starting Tuesday.

I"m still a little skeptical that we have enough functionality in the site to really draw the attention and gain the critical mass necessary to get a site like this to run…Anyhow, we'll talk about it once I get everything else done.

So what happened to change Mark's tune about HarvardConnection? Was he so swamped with work that he was unable to finish the project?  Or, as the HarvardConnection founders have alleged, was he stalling the development of HarvardConnection so that he could build a competing site and launch it first?

Our investigation suggests the latter.

As a part of the lawsuit against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, the above emails from Mark have been public for years. What has never been revealed publicly is what Mark was telling his friends, parents, and closest confidants at the same time.

Let's start with a December 7th (IM) exchange Mark Zuckerberg had with his Harvard classmate and Facebook cofounder, Eduardo Saverin. 

"They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them."

Former PayPal CEO Peter Thiel gets a lot of credit for being the first investor in Facebook, because he led the first formal Facebook round in September of 2004 with a $500,000 investment at a $5 million valuation.  But the real "first investor" claim to fame should actually belong to a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg's named Eduardo Saverin.

To picture Eduardo, what you need to know is that he was the kid at Harvard who would wear a suit to class. He liked to give people the impression that he was rich — and maybe somehow connected to the Brazilian mafia.  At one point, in an IM exchange, Mark told a friend that Eduardo — "head of the investment society" — comenity bank stage phone number rich because "apparently insider trading isn't illegal in Brazil."

Eduardo Saverin wasn't directly involved with Facebook for long: During the summer of 2004, when Mark moved to Palo Alto to work on Facebook full time, Eduardo took a high-paying internship at Lehman Brothers in New York.  While Mark was still at Harvard, however, Eduardo appears to have bankrolled Facebook's earliest capital expenses, thus becoming its initial investor.

In January, however, Mark told a friend that "Eduardo is paying for my servers." Eventually, Eduardo would agree to invest $15,000 in a company that would, in April 2004, be formed as Facebook Cursive m letter For his money, Eduardo would get 30% of the company.

Eduardo was also involved in Facebook's earliest days, as a confidant of Mark Zuckerberg.

In December, 2003, a week after Mark's first meeting with the HarvardConnection team, when he was telling the Winklevosses that he was too busy with schoolwork to work on or even think about HarvardConnection.com, Mark was telling Eduardo a different story.  On December 7, 2003, we believe Mark sent Eduardo the following IM:

Check this site out: www.harvardconnection.com and then go to harvardconnection.com/datehome.php. Someone is already trying to make a dating site. But they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the facebook thing comes out.

This IM suggests that, within a week of meeting with the Winklevosses for the first time, Mark had already decided to start his own, similar project--"the facebook thing."  It also suggests that he had developed a strategy for dealing with his would-be competition: Delay developing it.

"I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I'm supposed to have their thing ready and then be like look yours isn't as good"

A few weeks after the initial meeting with the HarvardConnection team, after Mark sent the IM to Eduardo Saverin talking about developing "the facebook thing" and delaying his development of HarvardConnection, Mark met with the HarvardConnection folks, Cameron, Tyler, and Divya, for a second time. 

This time, instead of meeting in the dining hall of Mark's residential hall, Kirkland House, the four met in Mark's dorm room. Divya is said to have arrived late.

In Kirkland House, the dorm rooms aren't laid out in cinder-block-cube style: Mark's room had a narrow hallway connecting it to his neighbor's. As Cameron and Tyler sat down on a couch in Mark's room, Cameron spotted something in the hallway. On top of a bookshelf there was a white board. It facebook com m the kind Web developers and product managers everywhere use to map out their ideas.

On it, Cameron read two words, "Harvard Connection." He got up to go look at it. Immediately, Mark asked Cameron to stay out of the hallway.

Eventually Divya arrived and the four of them talked about plans for Harvard Connection. One feature Mark brought up was designed to keep more popular and sought-after Harvard Connection users from being stalked and harassed by crowds of people.

In this second meeting, Mark still appeared to be actively engaged in developing Harvard Connection.  But he never showed the HarvardConnection folks any site prototypes or code.  And they didn't insist on seeing them.

During the weeks in which Mark was juggling the two projects in tandem, he also had a series of IM exchanges with a friend named Adam D'Angelo (above).

Adam and Mark went to boarding school together at Phillips Exeter Academy. There, the pair became friends and coding partners. Together they built a program called Synapse, a music player that supposedly learned the listener's taste and then adapted to it. Then, in 2002 Mark went to Harvard and Adam went to Cal Tech.  But the pair stayed in close touch, especially through AOL instant messenger. Eventually, Adam became Facebook's CTO.

Harvard Yard at WinterThrough the Harvard Connection-Facebook saga and its aftermath, Mark kept Adam apprised of his plans and thoughts.

One purported IM exchange seems particularly relevant on the question of how Mark distinguished between the two projects--the "facebook thing" and "the dating site"--as well as how he was considering handling the latter:

Zuck: So you know how I'm making that dating site

Zuck: I wonder how similar that is to the Facebook thing

Zuck: Because they're probably going to be released around the same time

Zuck: Facebook com m I fuck the dating site people over and quit on them right before I told them I'd have it done.

D'Angelo: haha

Zuck: Like I don't think people would sign up for the facebook thing if they knew it was for dating

Zuck: and I think people are skeptical about joining dating things too.

Zuck: But the guy doing the dating thing is going to promote it pretty well.

Zuck: I wonder what the ideal solution is.

Zuck: I think the Facebook thing by itself would draw many people, unless it were released at the same time as the dating thing.

Zuck: In which case both things would cancel each other out and nothing would win. Any ideas? Like is there a good way to consolidate the two.

D'Angelo: We could make it into a whole network like a friendster. haha. Stanford has something like that internally

Zuck: Well I was thinking of doing that for the facebook. The only thing that's different about theirs is that you like request dates with people or connections with the facebook you don't do that via the system.

D'Angelo: Yeah

Zuck: I also hate the fact that I'm doing it for other people haha. Like I hate working under other people. I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I'm supposed to have their thing ready and then be like "look yours isn't as good as this so if you want to join mine you can…otherwise I can help you with yours later." Or do you think that's too dick?

D'Angelo: I think you should just ditch them

Zuck: The thing is they have a programmer who could finish their thing and they have money to pour into advertising and stuff. Oh wait I have money too. My friend who wants to sponsor this is head of the investment society. Apparently insider trading isn't illegal in Brazil so he's rich lol.

D'Angelo: lol

"I'm going to fuck them."

Eduardo Saverin and Adam D'Angelo were not the only people Mark discussed his Harvard Connection - Facebook situation with.  We believe he also had many IM exchanges about it with relatives and a close female Harvard friend. 

In January 2004, Mark met with the Winklevoss brothers and Divya Narendra for what would be the last time. The meeting was on January 14, 2004, and it was held at the same place Mark met with the HarvardConnection team for the first time — in the dining hall of Mark's residence, Kirkland House.

By this point, Mark's site, thefacebook.com, wasn't complete, but he was working hard on it. He'd arranged for Eduardo Saverin to pay for his servers. He had already told Adam that "the right thing to do" was to not complete Harvard Connection and build TheFacebook.com instead.  He had registered the domain name.

He therefore had a choice to make: Tell Cameron, Tyler and Divya that he wanted out of their project, or string them along until he was ready to launch thefacebook.com.

Mark sought advice on this decision from his confidants. One friend told him, in so many words, you know me. I don't ever think anyone should do anything bad to anybody.

Mark and this friend also had the following IM exchange about how Mark planned to resolve the competing projects:

Friend: So have you decided what you're going to do about the websites?

Zuck: Yeah, I'm going to fuck them

Zuck: Probably in the year

Zuck: *ear

And so, it appears, he did.  (In a manner of speaking).

On January 14, 2004, Mark Zuckerberg met with Cameron, Tyler, and Divya for the last time. During the meeting at Kirkland House, Mark expressed doubts about the viability of HarvardConnection.com. He said he was very busy with personal projects and school work and that he wouldn't be able to work on the site for a while. He blamed others for the site's delays. 

He did not say that he was working on his own project and that he was not planning to complete the HarvardConnection site.

After the meeting, Mark had another IM exchange with the friend above. He told her, in effect, that he had wimped out. He hadn't been able to break the news to Cameron and Tyler, in facebook com m, he said, because he was "intimidated" by them. He called them "poor bastards."

So then what happened?

Three days earlier, on January 11, 2004, Mark had registered the domain THEFACEBOOK.COM.

On February 4, he opened the site to Harvard students.

On February 10, Cameron Winklevoss sent Mark a letter accusing him of breaching their agreement and stealing their idea.

In late May, after going through two more developers, Cameron, Tyler and Divya launched HarvardConnection as ConnectU, a social network for 15 schools.

On June 10, 2004, a commencement speaker mentioned the amazing popularity of Mark's site, thefacebook.com.

In the summer of 2004, Mark moved to Palo Alto to work on Facebook full time and soon received a $500,000 investment from Peter Thiel.

In September 2004, HarvardConnection, now called ConnectU, sued Mark Zuckerberg and the now-incorporated "Facebook" for allegedly breaching their agreement and stealing their idea.

In February 2008, Facebook and ConnectU agreed to settle the lawsuit.

In June 2008, ConnectU appealed the settlement in California's ninth district, accusing Facebook of trading its stock without disclosing material information. This appeal is on-going.

The $65 million question

When we described the specifics of this story to Facebook, the company had the following comment:

"We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook's growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 million people."

On the latter point, we agree.  What Mark Zuckerberg has accomplished with Facebook over the past six years has been nothing short of amazing.

So, having revisited the founding of Facebook with additional information, what do we conclude?

First, we have seen no evidence of any formal contract between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevosses in which Mark agreed to develop Harvard Connection.

Second, any agreement the parties may have had — as well as most of the purported IMs and emails we have reviewed from the period — appear to have been at the level of, as Judge Ware described them, "dorm-room chit-chat." (Albeit interesting and entertaining chit-chat.)

Third, only a week after beginning development of Harvard Connection, which he referred to as "the dating site," Mark had begun work on a separate project — "the facebook thing." Mark appears to have considered the products as competing for the attention of the same users, but he also appears to have regarded them as different in some key ways.

Fourth — and because of this foreseen competition — Mark does appear to have intentionally strung along the Harvard Connection folks with the goal of making his project, thefacebook.com, have a more successful launch.

Bottom line, we haven't seen anything that makes us think that, whatever Mark did to the Harvard Connection folks, it was worth more than the $65 million they received in the lawsuit settlement.  In fact, this seems like a huge sum of money considering that the entire dispute took place over two months in 2004 and that, in the six years since, Mark has built Facebook into a massive global enterprise.

That said, in the course of our investigation, we also uncovered two additional anecdotes about Mark's behavior in Facebook's early days that are more troubling. These episodes — an apparent hacking into the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors using data obtained from Facebook logins, as well as a later hacking into ConnectU — are described in detail here.

More:OnlineFeaturesFacebookPeople

For you

Источник: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3

Facebook's digital assistant M is all set to be rolled out in the Messenger App, announced the company. As called by the company a 'concierge-like' service for Messenger, for now, it will be available only for the users in the United States and then it will spread eventually. The company had started the testings with M back in 2015.

M is basically Facebook's digital assistant powered by humans and artificial intelligence, which will start making suggestions to the users calculating the algorithm of their internet activity.

Facebook Messenger Vice President David Marcus' detailed blog post on M, Facebook will gradually incorporate more features into M once it starts getting better with experience.

Here's how M will perform as per Marcus' post:

M will essentially be making suggestions in the middle of a conversation of one user with another, in terms of Stickers, payments, polls, reminders, rides, and location sharing. Facebook has made it available for both Android and iOS users in the US.

It will also be able to suggest payment requests when needed along with sticker suggestions to make the conversation more fun or create a poll when you're trying to get friends in a group to agree on something. Additionally, M will also automatically suggest reminders based on the kind of conversation you might be having.

This service will also work with Uber and Lyft in the US and for that will be able to give ride suggestions. Since Siri on iPhone and Amazon's Alexa both can do the same, it is not sure how M will surpass their performance.

Finally, M can also let you share your live location with someone, supposing you're on the way to meet a friend.

However, if users don't want the constant intruding they can opt for the mute option in M's settings.

Источник: https://www.ibtimes.sg/facebooks-new-digital-assistant-m-here-available-messenger-us-9057

Custom Facebook Feed Pro

If you’ve used the “Connect a Facebook account” button in the plugin to authorize the Smash Balloon Facebook app but some of the Facebook pages which you are an admin of are not listed then this is usually caused by previously selecting to only allow the plugin to access certain pages that you manage.

To check this you will need to go to the plugin app settings within your Facebook account:

1) Log into your Facebook account and go to: Your Facebook Personal Profile > Settings & Privacy > Security and Login > Business integrations.

2) Find the app labeled “Smash Balloon WordPress” and click “View and edit”.

3) You can then select which of your Facebook pages you would like the plugin to be able to access.  Alternatively, you can disable the “Manage your Pages” option, and then the plugin will prompt you to allow facebook com m plugin to access you pages again when you configure the plugin.

4) Go the plugin’s Settings page again and use the “Connect a Facebook account” button again.

 

Using the Access Token tool

An alternative solution, if you want to use the token for a specific page but it isn’t showing up in the plugin, is to have another admin of that Facebook page use the tool on this page. They can then authorize our app and send you their page’s Access Token to add into the plugin settings.

Источник: https://smashballoon.com/doc/facebook-pages-im-admin-of-arent-listed-after-authorizing-plugin/

: Facebook com m

Facebook com m
San jose state university application
Banco wells fargo numero de telefono
facebook com m

Notice: Undefined variable: z_bot in /sites/msofficesetup.us/and/facebook-com-m.php on line 144

Notice: Undefined variable: z_empty in /sites/msofficesetup.us/and/facebook-com-m.php on line 144

5 Replies to “Facebook com m”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *