Those comments are downvoted because there is no evidence that anyone is paying for data from Zoom. IMO, speculation without support should be downvoted.

Companies ultimately respond to monetary incentives. So directly or indirectly, they are giving your data to Facebook because it gets them paid.

That's... the point of a company? If this argument boils down to "Zoom to FB is bad because it gets Zoom paid directly or indirectly and FB=bad", then I think the same argument could apply to almost any business that advertises on FB (a large number of businesses).

If this isn't your argument, I apologize for misunderstanding. Could you elaborate a bit?

There is a difference between advertising on Facebook, and sending the data from your users to Facebook in order to advertise for cheaper.

But yes, any business that sends your data to Facebook for advertising purposes is bad and should not be used.

> Why do comments suggesting that data collection is paid for by Facebook/google get downvoted?

It's not that I disagree with the facts here. Obviously they're doing so for some sort of monetary incentive. That doesn't make it any less evil. I don't care if it's legal. Companies that depend on the sale of user data to be profitable are acting unethically and (imo) unsustainable as those profits may not be available to them in a future with better regulation.

I’m not suggesting it’s OK. I’m saying that given how widespread this is I’d like to understand why. Why did Wacom collect data? Why is zoom? It doesn’t make sense to me unless there is some external driver. If FB or G are paying for these privacy violations then I think that’s really bad too!

Considering this is the default for the Facebook SDK, it’s not obvious to me at all that they’re doing it for a monetary incentive (not that that makes this acceptable).

The GP is easy to interpret as justifying or excusing the behavior. Something being profitable doesn't suddenly make it OK.

If didn’t say or imply it was ok.

I ASKED if it was a revenue stream.

And I didn’t say or imply I downvoted you. Do you think people downvote for fun? It’s not like your question was rhetorical right

(Sorry I’m going to stop being obnoxious now, hope you understand why it’s easy to read your comment as such!)

I’ve long since given up trying to figure out why HN goes and goes against certain things. The vote system here is one of the clearest examples of “let’s build a bubble” that I can think of.

There is no way Zoom is just sending secret data to FB out of the evilness (because it’s not goodness!) of their hearts for fun. So someone is trading value somewhere.

Obviously someone at Zoom thinks they get value out if it. But that's quite different from "this is a revenue source", which would suggest Facebook paying money for it. Your typical company will happily put a tracking SDK in so some marketers get some more graphs to look at in Facebook Analytics.

How do you know if it isn’t a revenue stream?

I guess I’m thinking that if this information that Zoom (a publicly traded company) was doing this, it would be bad for business, so doing it just optionally for fun, seems like all risk and that an appropriate reward would be a financial incentive.

Even if it isn't a revenue stream it can still have value to them, it doesn't have to be for "fun". This may simply be one of their ways of acquiring metrics.

As for it not appearing in their TOS, the "risk", it isn't unusual for the left hand to not know what the right is doing. Those drafting the legal text may not have known that this particular analytics system was being used.

There are many arguments for why this was overlooked, and why it exists, without it having to be direct revenue.