Entrepreneur First, the London-based company builder backed by Greylock, expands to Hong Kong

When Silicon Valley’s Greylock Partners led Entrepreneur First‘s $12.4 million funding round in September, Greylock’s Reid Hoffman said he could see the company builder expanding to “20 or 30 or 40 cities, maybe even 50“. Since then, EF has expanded to Berlin, in addition to existing programmes in London and Singapore, and today the so-called ‘talent first’ investor is adding Hong Kong to the list.

Heading up EF’s Hong Kong office is former Airbnb and Google exec Lavina Tien, while the Hong Kong programme, which kicks off in July, will copy the Berlin format, meaning that it will run for 3 months per cohort, not 6 months as in London and Singapore. In addition, teams formed at EF Hong Kong will be eligible to participate in its Singapore demo day.

This is part of a new EF format that aims to make the company builder’s secret sauce, which sees it recruit founders ‘pre-team, pre-idea,’ a lot more scalable. So far, EF co-founder Matt Clifford tells me, it’s working out well.

He says the Berlin program was able to set up and recruit its first cohort in 9 weeks compared to the 9 months it took to get fully operational in Singapore, sounding extremely bullish about the future potential for more expansion.

That’s because the new shorter formula is designed to let EF focus locally on the part most unique to the organisation — persuading the best technical and domain talent to try their hand at entrepreneurship and in turn matching them with a complementary co-founder so that they can form a startup that might otherwise never exist.

Clifford also says this is about doubling down on EF’s Asia ambitions. He notes that, similar to other EF outposts, Hong Kong is a burgeoning but perhaps latent tech ecosystem with good education — such as Hong Kong University for Science and Technology, the University of Hong Kong, and the Chinese University of Hong Kong — and access to capital that is beginning to turn its attention locally rather than simply investing abroad.

Adds EF co-founder Alice Bentinck: “We believe that there are a handful of exceptional technologists globally who have the skills and ambition to build the next generation of breakout technology companies. We know that we will find some of them in Hong Kong, just as we have in London, Singapore and Berlin”.

Meanwhile, Clifford won’t be drawn into where EF might expand next, although he doesn’t rule out adding a further programme this year. If I had to guess, I’d say Paris is a good bet, but in all honestly there are quite a number of cities that could tick the EF box.

Separately, I’m hearing that the company builder is raising a new investment fund so that it can continue the strategy of doing follow-on investments at seed and Series A into the most promising companies it helps build, across all of the locations it now operates. As always, watch this space.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/22/entrepreneur-first-hong-kong/


UK data watchdog still waiting for warrant to raid Cambridge Analytica

The UK’s data watchdog, the Information Commission’s Office (ICO), has still not obtained a warrant to enter and search the servers of the London-based political consultancy, Cambridge Analytica — the company at the center of the data misuse scandal engulfing Facebook — three days on from beginning the process.

The earliest a warrant could now be obtained by the regulator is Friday.

In a statement today the ICO said: “A High Court judge has adjourned the ICO’s application for a warrant relating to Cambridge Analytica until Friday. The ICO will be in court to continue to pursue the warrant to obtain access to data and information to take forward our investigation.”

The information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, made it public on Tuesday that she was seeking a warrant to search CA’s servers after the company missed a Monday deadline to hand over information her office had requested.

She also instructed Facebook to withdraw its own investigators from CA’s offices, warning that their presence could compromise her investigation.

Unlike competition authorities, the ICO does not have legal powers to raid offices without a warrant. And former UK attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has argued the ICO’s legal powers are inadequate — telling the BBC on Tuesday that the Facebook-CA scandal highlighted a need for “greater powers and greater sanctions”.

Greater sanctions are at least incoming — under the EU’s GDPR regime which will apply from May 25, raising the maximum fine for the most serious data protection violations to up to 4% of a company’s global turnover (or €20M, whichever is greater).

But the fact that the data watchdog is forced to sit on its hands waiting to gain access to servers that the companies of interest to its investigation are in control of or able to access raises serious questions about the asymmetry between big data and regulation.

Earlier this month Denham told MPs on the DCMS committee that’s investigating fake news that her office would be pushing for increased transparency around data flows and disclosure rules for digital political advertising — suggesting a code of conduct is needed to regulate the use of social media in political campaigns, referendums and elections.

And while Facebook has claimed it was unaware that ~50M Facebook users’ data was passed to Cambridge Analytica for political targeting purposes, Facebook has itself long been actively encouraging politicians and political campaigns to make use of its tools — at a time when there was a complete lack of regulation for political ads on digital platforms.

Almost a year ago, in May 2017, the ICO announced a formal investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes — including looking into complaints related to Cambridge Analytica’s use of data for ad targeting.

That investigation remains ongoing. And may well now be further delayed, given the developing nature of the story (and the ICO’s push for a warrant so it can conduct a full audit of CA’s servers).

Although, earlier this month before the latest Facebook-CA revelations hit the headlines, Denham told the committee she hoped to be able to publish the report by the end of May.

Asked by the DCMS committee whether the ICO has adequate powers to carry out its responsibilities Denham flagged a problematic gap in her “information notice powers” — noting that while the ICO can make a formal demand for information, organisations are not compelled to disclose the requested data (though they can be prosecuted for not doing so).

“Without the power to compel it is difficult to secure the desired outcome,” she told the committee. But she added she’s raised the issue with ministers and is hopeful the UK government will remedy this gap.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/22/uk-data-watchdog-still-waiting-for-warrant-to-raid-cambridge-analytica/

Mozilla pulls ads off Facebook over data access concerns

Mozilla has announced it’s suspending its advertising on Facebook in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica privacy controversy — saying it has concerns the current default privacy settings remain risky, and having decided to take a fresh look at Facebook’s app permissions following the latest user data handling scandal.

This week the New York Times and The Observer of London reported that a researcher’s app had pulled personal information on about 270,000 Facebook users and 50 million of their friends back in 2015, and then passed that data haul to political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica in violation of Facebook’s policies.

Facebook’s policies previously allowed developers to siphon off app users’ Facebook friends data — though Facebook tightened up these permissions in 2014 — “to dramatically reduce data access”, as founder Mark Zuckerberg has now claimed — though evidently not dramatically enough for Mozilla.

Mozilla writes: “This news caused us to take a closer look at Facebook’s current default privacy settings given that we support the platform with our advertising dollars. While we believe there is still more to learn, we found that its current default settings leave access open to a lot of data – particularly with respect to settings for third party apps.”

It is also running a petition calling for Facebook to lock down app permission settings to ensure users’ privacy is “protected by default”, saying the current default settings “leave a lot of questions and a lot of data flying around”.

“Facebook’s current app permissions leave billions of its users vulnerable without knowing it,” it writes. “If you play games, read news or take quizzes on Facebook, chances are you are doing those activities through third-party apps and not through Facebook itself. The default permissions that Facebook gives to those third parties currently include data from your education and work, current city and posts on your timeline.

“We’re asking Facebook to change its policies to ensure third parties can’t access the information of the friends of people who use an app.”

Mozilla says it will “consider returning” to advertising on Facebook when — or presumably if — the company makes adequate changes to bolster default privacy settings.

“We are encouraged that Mark Zuckerberg has promised to improve the privacy settings and make them more protective. When Facebook takes stronger action in how it shares customer data, specifically strengthening its default privacy settings for third party apps, we’ll consider returning,” it writes. “We look forward to Facebook instituting some of the things that Zuckerberg promised today.”

We’ve reached out to Facebook for comment on Mozilla’s action and will update this story with any response.

At the time of writing Mozilla had not responded to questions about the move.

Even setting aside the current Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data handling scandal, big privacy-related changes are incoming to Facebook thanks to the European Union’s updated data protection framework, GDPR, which will apply from May 25 to any company that processes EU citizens’ personal data.

As part of those changes — and as Facebook tries to comply with the new EU privacy standard — in January the company announced it would be rolling out a new privacy center globally that would put core privacy settings in one place. That one-stop hub is yet to launch but must arrive before May 25.

Also in January Facebook published a set of privacy principles — including grand claims that: “We help people understand how their data is used”; “We design privacy into our products from the outset”; “We work hard to keep your information secure”; “You own and can delete your information”; and “We are accountable”.

Given the last of its published principles, it will be interesting to see which executive Facebook chooses to send to testify in front of Congress — to explain things like how it failed to protect the privacy of ~50M users nor even inform people their data had been siphoned off for illicit purposes.

Asked by CNN whether he will personally testify, Zuckerberg said he will do so “if it’s the right thing to do”. So we’ll soon find out how much that privacy accountability ‘principle’ is really worth.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/22/mozilla-pulls-ads-off-facebook-over-data-access-concerns/

Zuckerberg on #deletefacebook: ‘You know, it’s not good’

Following what felt like years of silence on a plethora of issues, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has gone on an interview rampage (but not us — was it my editorial?). Although he mainly plugs away at the points he made in today’s blog post, there are a few items worth noting.

Regarding the company’s acceptance at face value that Cambridge Analytica had deleted the data they weren’t supposed to have (to Recode):

At the time it didn’t seem like we needed to go further on that. Given what we know now we clearly should have followed up and we’re never going to make that mistake again.

And what about the thousands of apps that may have performed similar data grabs during the many years it was possible?

The data isn’t on our servers, so it would require us sending out forensic auditors to different apps.

How many apps are we talking about here? (to the New York Times)

It will be in the thousands.

Will the 50 million estimated to be affected by the data collected by Aleksandr Kogan be notified to what extent their data was shared?

Yes. We’re going to tell anyone whose data may have been shared.

Presumably the same will be true for anyone found to be affected by other unsavory apps.

What about the public response? What does he think about #deletefacebook?

I don’t think we’ve seen a meaningful number of people act on that, but, you know, it’s not good.

As for preventing future manipulation of the system during a major election year (not just here but around the world):

In 2017 with the special election in Alabama, we deployed some new A.I. tools to identify fake accounts and false news, and we found a significant number of Macedonian accounts that were trying to spread false news, and were able to eliminate those.

Hopefully they’ll prove as effective during our own campaign.

Zuckerberg also goes off on some interesting tangents with Wired, for instance the efficacy of AI in certain situations and the status of the Cambridge Analytica audit in the UK. As for whether he’ll appear in front of Congress:

If it is ever the case that I am the most informed person at Facebook in the best position to testify, I will happily do that.

If I had to guess, I’d say that hour fast approaches.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/zuckerberg-on-deletefacebook-you-know-its-not-good/

Now would be a good time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign

Facebook is at the center of a dozen controversies, and outrage is peaking. The social network has failed again and again at expanding beyond a handful of core features. Doubts of its usefulness, and assertions of its uselessness, are multiplying. A crisis of confidence at multiple levels threatens the company’s structure and mission. Now is the time for Mark Zuckerberg to spare himself the infamy and resign — for Facebook’s sake and his own.

I’m not calling for his resignation, and I don’t say this out of any animus towards Zuckerberg; I personally believe him to be genuine and driven in his stated desire to connect the world — but likely increasingly frustrated by the unexpected consequences of this naive ambition and the haste with which he has pursued it. I just think that it has come to the point where the best way for him to advance that ambition is to leave.

There are three major reasons why.

Facebook has failed

Of course, it’s also true that Facebook has succeeded beyond every expectation. But its success arrived early and remains essentially a simple thing: being a broadly accessible, functioning social network. A single network of friends, a basic news feed from them, and a few adjunct capabilities were industry defining ideas and to a certain point were executed quite well. Beyond that admittedly towering success Facebook has accomplished remarkably little.

Attempts to make Facebook a ubiquitous social graph layer connecting all apps and services failed because consumers found it creepy, companies found it threatening to rely completely on the company for demographic data, and tech was moving too quickly for the data Facebook had to be universally applicable. (Except, of course, in advertising, where it is evergreen.)

Attempts to make Facebook a gaming platform failed partly because the social aspect of gaming is radioactive, and partly because the attention economy produces really bad games. Repurposing an established community into a gaming one was a non-starter, and what’s left of the brief Facebook gaming flash in the pan is just an oily residue clinging to the side of the newsfeed.

Attempts to make Facebook a VR/AR powerhouse are ongoing, but that entire segment of tech has proven incredibly disappointing and eye-wateringly expensive for everyone involved. So far they’re a market leader in a market that seems to only exist for the purpose of swindling money out of investors. It’s too early to call it a complete boondoggle with certainty since Facebook is supposedly playing a longer game here, but it sure isn’t promising.

Attempts to improve messaging beyond the basics have failed; chatbots are of poor quality and largely pointless, in-chat games are novelties at best, business applications are politely declined, and while aesthetic changes like stickers could make a little money in the short term, that’s not really the kind of thing that supports a global infrastructure.

Attempts to make Facebook a reliable news source ran into the many-headed hydra that is “objectivity” and everything that comes with it. Boy, they didn’t think that through. I’m not even going to get started on the ways it’s failed here.

Attempts to make Facebook an infrastructure provider have arguably so far failed as either abortive or fanciful. Free basics failed despite good intentions because the company has not earned the trust to be in that position. The laser-based Aquila internet glider is a wonderful science project but strikes me as something of a Spruce Goose situation: Underserved communities would be served better by, off the top of my head, grants offsetting large broadband providers’ advantages in infrastructure contracts, or just paying for laying fiber or building towers. (Later efforts at Internet.org have been more limited and practical and I applaud them.)

Attempts to make Facebook a media company failed (or are stumbling) for a multiplicity of reasons: strong and agile competitors, a lack of focus, too many ads, incompatibility with the like economy.

Attempts to branch out on mobile have failed, though none very spectacularly — which is almost a failure in itself. The main app is of course fabulously popular, as is Instagram. Only by paying a billion dollars, and literally subtracting a fundamental feature from the original app were they able to increase the number of icons on most phones.

Attempts to make Facebook cool have failed almost from the beginning. I hesitate to go so far as to define coolness, but I will say that it’s generally thought to be incompatible with ubiquity. They bought some cool with Instagram, but the shine is starting to wear off that one.

This litany of failures (by no means comprehensive, and of course there have been minor successes, too) is also conspicuously a list of things Zuckerberg has personally set his sights on. Over and over, he has said “this is what we’re going to do.” And then they don’t do it — not really. A cash infusion and a bit of borrowed momentum from the ongoing original success of the basic social network, and each effort begins with a semblance of self-propulsion. But all of them have lost steam as Facebook failed to follow through, mindlessly followed through on the wrong thing, or just moved on to the next target.

As founder and CEO, Zuckerberg should by all means take substantial credit for the initial success of the platform. But he also has to take responsibility for the laundry list of botched attempts to do much more than provide the basic service people valued since the earliest days.

By no means is he alone in this type of failure, by the way: All the tech giants have products and phases they’d rather not speak of or, though they might refuse to acknowledge it, have been crushing defeats. But Zuckerberg is on his own in the level of personal ownership he has tried to exert over these numerous misadventures.

Facebook is not about connecting the world

It’s become clear over the years that Facebook left its original mission statement behind a long, long time ago.

15 years back, perhaps even 10 or 5, Facebook was just what we needed. But the world has changed, the way we interact with technology and each other has changed, and Facebook hasn’t. The platform’s greatest failure isn’t any of those side projects listed above; it’s the failure to evolve its core product to succeed by its own metrics of quality time and meaningful connection.

Facebook started as a rough approximation of sharing your life with a group of friends. But as its scope has increased, this approximation has been found to be increasingly inadequate. What’s also become clear is that Facebook has been working hard to redefine how people interact online to fit better with its own limited capabilities. Faced with the square peg of human interactions and the round hole (the image of a pit is inescapable) of Facebook’s newsfeed and algorithms, they decided it was the former that needed modification.

The root of that is simple: Fitting Facebook to the people’s needs is not as lucrative as vice versa. Facebook runs on ads, and ads run on eyeballs. That’s the business model that has dominated the last decade or so — well, the last couple centuries really, but in its current form 10-15 years. Facebook has been one of the most successful practitioners of it because, as they never tire of telling their customers (that is to say, advertisers), they know things about us that others don’t. Important things. This is, as I mentioned earlier, the one place where its troves of seemingly trivial data add up.

Facebook is not a platform for connecting people, it’s a platform for monetizing the connections they make on their own. The company simply doesn’t prioritize the quality of these connections themselves in any meaningful way — nor, I think, can it. That’s probably a realization they reached early on. These flailing attempts to grow appendages were always just ways to multiply the number of superficial connections and train users to conflate constant, convenient updates with meaningful interactions.

The parallel track to this is on the sales and advertising side, where Facebook has repeatedly been cavalier with the data it has been entrusted with and selectively honest with the users from which it was sourced. People have stopped trusting it, if they ever really did. No one believes its executives when they say things about quality time, and respecting your data, and so on. Some of them may be sincere — but it doesn’t matter.

The work that needs to be done to connect the world can’t be done by an entity as compromised as Facebook; it’s just the wrong tool for the job. Zuckerberg’s mission to connect the world isn’t happening the way he planned and it isn’t going to happen. Ironically it was the success of his own vision that demonstrated the limits of that vision.

The time is right for him and for the company

Facebook has grown big enough that it was never going to be free from controversy. But for the last few years there seems to have been a constant hum of disappointment from practically every quarter, every demographic, every customer, every country and regulator.

During the tumultuous last year, the fundamental idea of advertising on Facebook based on hidden character traits has been shown to be an insidious, easily abused practice. It responded much as its big tech colleagues have: affect shock, assure users this was never intended, and promise action. Zuckerberg, who is politically active and of course deeply involved in all the operations at Facebook, has been almost completely silent.

He has occasionally addressed such controversies. But more often than not he has offered little more than lip service, lines so tired — “at Facebook we take this very seriously,” for instance — that they’ve become parody. As I was writing, in fact, he did exactly this. “I’m serious about doing what it takes to protect our community” were his exact words.

But not just those words!

“I started Facebook, and at the end of the day I’m responsible for what happens on our platform,” he wrote.

The exact form this responsibility takes is not specified. But the best thing for him to do would be resign.

I don’t mean instantly — that would be chaos. But soon. Think about it: it’s really the best thing for everyone.

For Facebook, it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card. Zuckerberg can easily take a lot of the heat being pointed at the company right now, since as he says he is responsible for what happened. He can shield loyal employees and executives who really were likely doing his bidding. He could do a junket of Congress, the FTC, a few courts, and so on to express his personal responsibility for the actions and to beg people to understand that Facebook should not be held to be synonymous with his mistakes of many years. Meanwhile at the company there would be carte blanche for reinvention, reversing years-old policies, admitting faults.

For users, it’s a nice clean break and a new hope for the platform. For a long time people have rolled their eyes at the promises of change, and seen mainly aimless algorithm tweaks and failed attempts to imitate competitors. The election debacle and this ongoing Cambridge Analytica situation are just the latest problem to appear; user faith is long since eroded, and many more would leave if not for some strong network effects binding them to the platform. For Zuckerberg, the avatar and origin of all of Facebook’s many mistakes (and of course successes) to personally step aside is meaningful change, and may lead to meaningful change at the platform level. At the very least even skeptical users like myself would be curious to see how it all plays out.

For Zuckerberg, this could be the best thing that ever happened to him. The optics are great — brave and idealistic young CEO sacrifices himself so that the company can live on. And it’s not like he doesn’t have another life waiting for him. How does retiring in your early 30s with billions in the bank, spending a year or two with your wife and young daughter, then reemerging to dedicate yourself full time to your philanthropic causes sound? The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative and Internet.org could help more people in more meaningful ways than Facebook ever could. It might even be time to grow a nice beard.

I don’t think he’s really going to do it, of course (resign, that is — he may still grow a beard). At the risk of sounding like an armchair psychiatrist, his ego identifies too strongly with Facebook. Separating himself from it would be traumatic, perhaps impossible. Furthermore, my pessimistic view of Facebook’s works would be more than balanced by his own optimistic view. If he read this I doubt he would agree with much I’ve written.

All the same, I don’t think he will ever have a better chance to leave than this, and he may in the near future wish he had bowed out around now. Free of Zuckerberg, Facebook might blossom anew or it might wither; but most damningly of all, its users probably won’t care either way.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/now-would-be-a-good-time-for-mark-zuckerberg-to-resign/

7 much scarier questions for Zuckerberg

Could this be just the beginning of a much bigger Cambridge Analytica scandal for Facebook? The answer rides on how transparent Facebook is actually being right now. CEO Mark Zuckerberg put forth a statement and plan to improve data privacy, but omitted some of the most greivous inquiries, and stopped short of apologizing.

Exactly how Facebook handled the multi-year fiasco could be core to whether the public forgets and goes back to scrolling their News Feed, or whether users leave en masse while government regulators swoop in. With journalists around the world digging in and government officials calling for Zuckerberg to testify, the truth is likely to trickle out. Here’s what we want to know:

  1. To what exent did Facebook vigorously investigate whether Cambridge Analytica had actually deleted all its Facebook user data back in 2015 when it made it promise to do so, and why didn’t it inform the public of the situation? (When did Zuckerberg find out? Was Facebook concerned about appearing liberal and for investigating a conservative political organization?)
  2. How could Facebook not know Cambridge Analytica was using ill-gotten Facebook data when Facebook employees worked directly with the Donald Trump campaign? (Facebook employees worked side-by-side with Cambridge Analytica in Trump’s San Antonio campaign office, so did they look the other way about suspicious data?)
  3. Did Cambridge Analytica attain illicit Facebook data from any other sources besides Alexander Koger’s app, such as from other apps it operated, scraping Facebook group membership, or buying data from other developers? (Was the Trump campaign’s masterful use of Facebook and other social media powered by more than just this one data set, perhaps even from other social networks?)
  4. Is there any evidence that data from Russian hackers or the governemnt was used by Cambridge Analytica to inform Trump’s campaign marketing? (If so, could Facebook be the smoking gun of potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign?)
  5. Is Facebook retaining data, ads, or posts connected to Cambridge Analytica for further investigation? (If Cambridge Analytica did misuse data, what content was powered by that misuse, and who else pitched in?)
  6. Why did Facebook try to suppress the stories about Cambridge Analytica from news outlets like The Observer with legal threats if it’s so serious about atoning for the scandal? (Who authorized or conducted those threats, and what’s happened to them since?)
  7. How will Facebook ensure the security of user data attained by apps given that there could be tons of developers storing multiple separate copies of the data, beyond the big or suspicious ones Facebook plans to audit? (Should the public expect more news of app data misuse by other developers?)

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/did-cambridge-get-other-data/

Zuckerberg’s response to Cambridge scandal omits why it delayed investigating

“I started Facebook, and at the end of the day I’m responsible for what happens on our platform” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted after days of the public and government officials waiting for him to speak up about the Cambridge Analytica scandal since it broke Friday. “We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.”

Zuckerberg laid out a slate of changes Facebook will make to prevent past and future abuses of user data by app developers. Those include:

  1. Blocking data access of apps you haven’t used for three months or more
  2. Auditing old apps that collected a lot of personal data
  3. Reducing the amount of data apps can pull using Facebook Login without an additional permissions screen to just your name, profile photo, and email address
  4. Requiring a signed contract from developers that want to pull your posts or private information
  5. Surfacing Facebook’s privacy third-party app privacy settings tool atop the News Feed to help people repeal access to apps
  6. Telling people if their data was misued by the app associated with Cambridge Analytica, or apps Facebook bans for misue in the future.

What’s missing from this response is any indication why Facebook didn’t do more to enforce its policy prohibiting apps from sharing user data, or why it took Cambridge Analytica at their word when they said they deleted the data without proper investigation. Or a straight-forward apology. Facebook is still playing the victim here.

Facebook was hit with one of its biggest scandals ever when multiple outlets reported that a researcher’s app pulled personal information about 270,000 users and 50 million of their friends, then passed that data to Cambridge Analytica. The political strategy firm then used that data to power messaging, targeting, and more for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Brexit Leave movement.

The proposed solutions should help users take better control of their data while putting sensible friction and documentation in place for app developers that want people’s personal info or content. The audits of developers who pulled lots of friends’ data before the 2014 change that restricted that ability could root out some more bad actors.

But overall, the plan doesn’t address the fact that tons of developers pulled and may still be in possession of illicit Facebook data. Now off of Facebook’s servers, it has little control over it. Finding and deleting every copy of these data sets may be impossible. That could lead to future data scandals that may make people take Zuckerberg up on his assertion that if Facebook can’t keep people’s data safe, they shouldn’t use it.

You can read Zuckerberg’s full post below:

I want to share an update on the Cambridge Analytica situation — including the steps we've already taken and our next…

Posted by Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday, March 21, 2018

For more on Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, read our feature pieces:

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/21/zuckerberg-cambridge-analytica/