They must attempt to monitor one computer at a time per power station, after convincing the rest of the population to turn off all electrical equipment for the duration. And at a max data rate of 1 Kbps. Right. Someone alert DHS.

So we do have free will after all.

Excellent point, rsilvergun. That's certainly a plausible explanation. Still, reason leads me to believe that in most cases the questioners weren't feigning ignorance.

They were certainly briefed on the issues, but I didn't get the impression that many--if any--had much real understanding of the topic. Especially when it comes to the ramifications of AI working with the data.

On the subject of third party icons, I was specifically referring not to the 'like' buttons, but those offering to log-in new users via a Facebook link to their identities. I expect that these transmit a lot more data in both directions. (Then again, I certainly could be wrong. The 'like' button may do more than I have assumed.) It would be very interesting to know if any /. folks have examined the operation of these things and what was found.

"These people's ignorance is not a reason to blame Facebook for anything."

Yes it is! Facebook victimizes people who don't understand the technology. It's not realistic to believe that everyone even has the capability of understand this kind of thing, especially since there's precious little mainstream discussion. There are a lot of technical people who don't understand the issues. I will admit that there's some precedence that's been set in holding people responsible for understanding legal jargon, but I believe it only stands because lawyers make the laws. A lot of what's done on this basis is morally reprehensible, and the same is true of many Facebook activities. Would you defend payday lenders?

AI is not yet smarter than people in every respect, but it certainly excels in producing results using huge data sets. No human could do that.

Can I interest you in a game of Go?

"The information they keep about people was given to them voluntarily — either by users themselves, or by their friends and acquaintances. And what they now know, they are free to share — sell, give away, publicize, it is up to them."

I disagree. Most of the people who provided the data to Facebook had no idea that it could be used in the way it is. Most Facebook users still don't know what's being done with their data, and that's exactly the way Facebook wants it. To say that these people willingly handed it over is like saying people scammed during the savings and loan scandals should have known better. When is the last time you read three or four pages of fine print legalese before signing up to use a website, or when applying for a mortgage? Even if you're determined to read it, you won't fully understand it unless you're a lawyer.

And when they scrape copies of every text message you sent with your cell phone, back when they could do it without asking; when they collected the names and phone numbers of all of your contacts; when they kept logs of who and when you call; when they keep logs of where you've been day after day out using location data from your phone--when they store all of this information, combined it with data from your Facebook profile, then put AI engines to work on it--I would say that those actions were all illegal invasions of privacy. Zuckerberg and friends should be tried for illegal eavesdropping.

And when that's done, they should start on Google and Microsoft . . .

Some people worry about what will happen when computers get smarter than people. They don't realize that it's already happened. AI can process huge volumes of data that humans could never hope to handle. The insights/information that can be derived from the kind of data that Facebook and Google keep boggles the mind. But don't believe me. Google it for yourself and you'll see. Maybe start with 'psycho-analytics'.

Zuckerberg took maximum advantage of the fact that the questions came from people mostly lacking the technical knowledge to judge his responses. For example, when asked if Facebook could track users across devices, he acted as though he didn't know. Is there anyone here who believes that? I wish we could ask him a few questions on Slashdot!

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook doesn't share user data, just uses it to predict which advertisements users are likely to respond to. In that case I'd really like to see what gets sent when someone uses Facebook to sign into a third party website.

Of course you're technically right, there's no getting around the fact that the whole discussion is by definition political. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to go the route of us vs them / red vs blue. In my opinion it's not a partisan issue, it effects all of us, and no ones hands are clean. My hope was that we can all see that.

"In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.

"Am I wrong about that? "

I hope so. I wouldn't put it past either political party to misuse the Facebook data, similar, or just about any other dirty trick. It seems to me that the main reason this has become a disagreement between right and left wingers is because both parties would rather divert attention from the erosion of Constitutional rights that is happening so rapidly in this country. Personally, I'm more concerned that Facebook or Google may know more about me than I know about myself then I am over which political party got caught in a dirty trick.

That isn't to say that I don't prefer one over another because of the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, but would rather not bring that into the discussion.

Thanks for the reasoned reply.