9 ms·

I don't have a problem with Google, Facebook and Twitter dominating the web as such because I don't have any accounts with them: They are commercial entities fi

I don't have a problem with Google, Facebook and Twitter dominating the web as such because I don't have any accounts with them: They are commercial entities filling a need. Capitalism at work I suppose. We all have a choice not to use them and I think this is the point he's missing (or the article is omitting). The opening paragraph should be "Inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned that the internet has become the "world's largest surveillance network for those that use Twitter, Facebook and Google". I have had lengthy conversations with my family and friends about Facebook and Google and what they do with your information and the majority shrug and say either "I'm not bothered" or "They would get bored looking at my stuff". I don't bring it up with anyone anymore. I feel that something monumentally bad will happen in the future related to the information these companies have amassed, something epically bad and the public will (perhaps) say "Enough is enough" but it will be too late... just my $0.02

RobertoG 10y ago
Maybe, but.. I bet you exchange emails with people that have a Gmail account and you are in photos with people that have a Facebook account.
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  Of course but my point is that no one is forcing me to do that. Sure, it sucks that they are harvesting stuff from me even though I am not part of their conclave but, as much as it pains me to say it, I could decide not to send or receive any emails from gmail. Facebook is a bit harder to avoid I admit... not sure what you do about that although I have had a few people lately ask me if it is ok to put a picture of my son on Facebook... never had that before. Inconvenient and incredibly tin-foil-hatty but possible. Imagine if we only had a state-owned ISP and VPNs were banned... that's what we need to watch out for. Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    " no one is forcing me to do that" Strictly speaking they are not, but they are forcing your hand when it's not practical to do different. Concretely Google have elevated that to an art. "Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!" All true. Sadly, you can be sure that their databases are going to be around forever..
eru 10y ago
Alas, wasn't Facebook collecting information about people not having an account these days?
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  Probably. When their business model is to exploit people then it wouldn't surprise me that they are collecting on an epic scale, even from those without an account. I assume that's what the Facebook buttons on websites all over the place are for but I use NoScript and UBlock Origin so I don't exist as far as they are concerned.
- coliveira 10y ago
  Yes, the only thing they need to track information is an IP number. If you use the internet, FB and Google know what you're doing.
  - tunap 10y ago
    Please, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't NoScript w/ Goog & FB removed from the whitelist solve this problem? Granted, using Goog services unlogged-in(?) puts you in their cross-hairs, but the sea of analytics and adservers can be avoided using NS(better w/ adblocker & user-agent spoof)to profoundly reduce your signal on the line. IP's addy's are unique, but unless you specifically requested 'static', yours is changing w/ varying frequency, as well.
    - JupiterMoon 10y ago
      Unless you are using tor or something similar you are still giving your IP address out.
      - waterphone 10y ago
        Yes, but if you're blocking your browser from making connections to Google and Facebook-connected servers when on other websites, you're not giving it out to Google and Facebook.
stinos 10y ago
We all have a choice not to use them we, as in the more 'tech'-savvy ones, sure do. But if you don't even know about alternatives or don't realize what happens with your information, and I'm sure there's a ton of people like that, then you don't really have a choice. That's even one step further then your family and frinds who say they can't be bothered: at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action. I have no idea how this can best improved in practice though. A start could be that schools teach this: incorporating information about privacy, other search engines and whatnot in lessons given to the youngest ones already seems like a good first step.
- tunap 10y ago
  "at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action." If nothing else comes of his courageous actions, Edward Snowden saved me from a few years of 'that look' when I try to inform people why all those 1/2 trillion dollar tech behemoths are giving so many services away for "free".
  - astrange 10y ago
    Their marginal cost is free.
Sylos 10y ago
You don't need to use their services to be tracked by them. Especially Google tracks people all over the internet, whether those people want to use their services or not. I've heard estimates that Google Analytics is deployed on about 70% of webpages. And their doubleclick-ads, Google+-buttons, JavaScript-APIs, CAPTCHAs, Custom Search Engines etc. are all over the web as well, and you'll have a hard time finding a webpage which does not use a Google service without asking you about it.
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  I used to agree with this but it is easier than ever before to seriously reduce your footprint on the web: I use a VPN, UBlock Origin and NoScript and although it's not perfect it stops all third parties tracking me with their stuff. Dead. It can be tedious at times, like hitting a link on HN to a site that requires JS... do I let them in or not? But it can be done. I don't know what size my footprint is online but I reckon it's tiny compared to, say, my mums. The thing that worries me is when someone puts everything together, i.e. Facebook data, Google data, Twitter data, government sites data etc... that's worrying.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> We all have a choice not to use them and I think this is the point he's missing (or the article is omitting). Moxie Marlinspike has a great talk on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aom3JonbcZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aom3JonbcZU). The problem isn't the choice -- but the constantly widening scope of the choice, back when Facebook was a brand-new thing, the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever. Today all of the photos albums my friends have taken are in one place: Facebook. All of activities people plan together are posted in one place: Facebook. When you meet someone new the nearly first thing they do is: check your Facebook. Facebook has broadened to assimilate the scope of activities and actions which were formerly independent aspects of life and to not have Facebook now - one pays a significantly higher social cost.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever. I manage to have the same social life I've ever had, without Facebook. I can't be an outlier. I mean, really, you have no way of seeing what your friends are doing without logging in Facebook? No one can call/text/email/stop over to tell you? That's hard to imagine. Maybe there's a specific demographic that is affected in this manner?
  - Santosh83 10y ago
    I think social networks like Facebook cover the case of when you want to broadcast your information or activities at once to hundreds possibly thousands of people. A single friend can call/text/drop in to tell me about something, but what if that friend wanted to lets say inform a 100 of his contacts of this without having to send 100 texts/call/emails and keeping track of all of them for responses? And social networks aren't just restricted to people but there are plenty of groups, organisations and clubs that want to reach out to not only all their members but potential audience too. Of course they can publish articles/ads in papers/magazines/TV, stick-up posters, send unsolicited email/calls etc., or they can have a Page/Group on Facebook.
    - 10y ago
maufl 10y ago
I think it's a bit more nuanced than "we all have a choice to not use them". I don't have WhatsApp because I refuse to create a new account on a closed system. This means I'm not in groups where plans are made between my friends and family. If I did not have Facebook or Google+ either, I wouldn't have been invited to parties etc ...
JustUhThought 10y ago
"I don't have a problem with Google, Facebook and Twitter dominating the web as such because I don't have any accounts with them: They are commercial entities filling a need. Capitalism at work I suppose." 1. It's not pure capitalism when there are political mechanisms in place to subsidize entire sectors of the economy and protect, through the arbitrary application of laws and regulations, some companies but no / at the expense of others. 2. Capitalism, on its own, by which I'm assuming you mean the market mechanism for price discovery and resource allocation, does not solve problems like the tragedy of the commons, it does not concern itself with things like civil rights or labor rights, it does not opporate satisfactorily in many sectors and circumstances such as building out public transportation before it is needed or financials panics or war time. 3. Neither whether or not you personally have a problem with them and whether nor not they are filling a commercial need are social issues. One is a personal issue. The other is a commercial issue. Perhaps you should consider the issue for a societal perspective.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Apologies for grammar / spelling. Typing on mobile phone, and this app I'm signed into doesn't allow for editing my comments.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Capital is extremely concerned about labor rights, in particular their suppression and elimination.
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  I am looking at the market as a tool to fulfil my needs, e.g. I need X and company Y springs up to provide it. I understand the political aspect of companies like google and the security nut in me says that they are in collusion with various other parties (I include governments in that) to give them access to their data (I have no evidence of this, I just think it's the case!)
athenot 10y ago
Do you really have a choice to not use them? If so: - You must not use android and have Google know your location for traffic purposes (and other ad-related data-mining) - You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association - You must block every single ad that originates from the Google ad network (and which is eager to learn your browsing habits) - You must never fly on an airline belonging to Star Alliance, as Google bought ITA Software (formerly known as Sabre) to get a hold of all the airline reservations done for those airlines - You must never send an email to someone with a Gmail address This is a case where choosing to not use Google is a bit more complicated than choosing to not drink Coke.
- Qantourisc 10y ago
  "You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association" -> Posting pictures about someone is iirc illegal in plenty of places without their consent, or at least borderline legal.
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, can be photographed and that photo can be used by its owner in any legal way they see fit.
    - dchest 10y ago
      Wow, do you know the laws of all countries?
    - elchief 10y ago
      Not in Quebec, ftr
  - mnx 10y ago
    Regardless of legality, you probably can get your friends not to post pictures of you. But it's a hassle.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
Their embedded scripts and ads on 3rd party sites are still tracking you.
maroonblazer 10y ago
> I feel that something monumentally bad will happen in the future related to the information these companies have amassed, something epically bad and the public will (perhaps) say "Enough is enough" but it will be too late... What's an example of something monumentally/epically bad happening involving this information?
- _Understated_ 10y ago
  I'm not sure to be honest: It's the tin-foil-hatter in me that is saying this but perhaps something like Google gets hacked and no one finds out for a couple of years giving someone plenty of time and data to do what they want, e.g. perhaps "out" a pile of prominent public figures or just plain extortion. I am not sure but we have seen breach after breach and no one is really batting an eyelid about it so it would have to be a massive breach leading to a massive problem.
nashashmi 10y ago
> say either "I'm not bothered" or "They would get bored looking at my stuff". In the past, we could have been indifferent to this massive trove of information collection because we relied on security of our personal lives through obscurity, or "needle in a haystack" philosophy. But with the advent of bots, we have opened the door for artificial intelligence by providing it a playground of information that it can run and develop algorithms on. This massive trove is not so massive anymore. And we should come to accept the doors of privacy have been virtually blown fully open now. The big question that remains is "What's next?" Self-imposed ethics? Thought police? Enslavement to an all-knowing being? Big brother?

RobertoG 10y ago

Maybe, but.. I bet you exchange emails with people that have a Gmail account and you are in photos with people that have a Facebook account.

_Understated_ 10y ago
Of course but my point is that no one is forcing me to do that. Sure, it sucks that they are harvesting stuff from me even though I am not part of their conclave but, as much as it pains me to say it, I could decide not to send or receive any emails from gmail. Facebook is a bit harder to avoid I admit... not sure what you do about that although I have had a few people lately ask me if it is ok to put a picture of my son on Facebook... never had that before. Inconvenient and incredibly tin-foil-hatty but possible. Imagine if we only had a state-owned ISP and VPNs were banned... that's what we need to watch out for. Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!
- RobertoG 10y ago
  " no one is forcing me to do that" Strictly speaking they are not, but they are forcing your hand when it's not practical to do different. Concretely Google have elevated that to an art. "Facebook, Google, Twitter and <insert other big co.> will not be around forever: Even tech giants fall - Look at Nokia!" All true. Sadly, you can be sure that their databases are going to be around forever..

eru 10y ago

Alas, wasn't Facebook collecting information about people not having an account these days?

_Understated_ 10y ago
Probably. When their business model is to exploit people then it wouldn't surprise me that they are collecting on an epic scale, even from those without an account. I assume that's what the Facebook buttons on websites all over the place are for but I use NoScript and UBlock Origin so I don't exist as far as they are concerned.
coliveira 10y ago
Yes, the only thing they need to track information is an IP number. If you use the internet, FB and Google know what you're doing.
- tunap 10y ago
  Please, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't NoScript w/ Goog & FB removed from the whitelist solve this problem? Granted, using Goog services unlogged-in(?) puts you in their cross-hairs, but the sea of analytics and adservers can be avoided using NS(better w/ adblocker & user-agent spoof)to profoundly reduce your signal on the line. IP's addy's are unique, but unless you specifically requested 'static', yours is changing w/ varying frequency, as well.
  - JupiterMoon 10y ago
    Unless you are using tor or something similar you are still giving your IP address out.
    - waterphone 10y ago
      Yes, but if you're blocking your browser from making connections to Google and Facebook-connected servers when on other websites, you're not giving it out to Google and Facebook.

stinos 10y ago

We all have a choice not to use them we, as in the more 'tech'-savvy ones, sure do. But if you don't even know about alternatives or don't realize what happens with your information, and I'm sure there's a ton of people like that, then you don't really have a choice. That's even one step further then your family and frinds who say they can't be bothered: at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action. I have no idea how this can best improved in practice though. A start could be that schools teach this: incorporating information about privacy, other search engines and whatnot in lessons given to the youngest ones already seems like a good first step.

tunap 10y ago
"at least now they know something's rotten because you told them and maybe there's even a couple of them who'll take some action." If nothing else comes of his courageous actions, Edward Snowden saved me from a few years of 'that look' when I try to inform people why all those 1/2 trillion dollar tech behemoths are giving so many services away for "free".
- astrange 10y ago
  Their marginal cost is free.

Sylos 10y ago

You don't need to use their services to be tracked by them. Especially Google tracks people all over the internet, whether those people want to use their services or not. I've heard estimates that Google Analytics is deployed on about 70% of webpages. And their doubleclick-ads, Google+-buttons, JavaScript-APIs, CAPTCHAs, Custom Search Engines etc. are all over the web as well, and you'll have a hard time finding a webpage which does not use a Google service without asking you about it.

_Understated_ 10y ago
I used to agree with this but it is easier than ever before to seriously reduce your footprint on the web: I use a VPN, UBlock Origin and NoScript and although it's not perfect it stops all third parties tracking me with their stuff. Dead. It can be tedious at times, like hitting a link on HN to a site that requires JS... do I let them in or not? But it can be done. I don't know what size my footprint is online but I reckon it's tiny compared to, say, my mums. The thing that worries me is when someone puts everything together, i.e. Facebook data, Google data, Twitter data, government sites data etc... that's worrying.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> We all have a choice not to use them and I think this is the point he's missing (or the article is omitting). Moxie Marlinspike has a great talk on this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aom3JonbcZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aom3JonbcZU). The problem isn't the choice -- but the constantly widening scope of the choice, back when Facebook was a brand-new thing, the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever. Today all of the photos albums my friends have taken are in one place: Facebook. All of activities people plan together are posted in one place: Facebook. When you meet someone new the nearly first thing they do is: check your Facebook. Facebook has broadened to assimilate the scope of activities and actions which were formerly independent aspects of life and to not have Facebook now - one pays a significantly higher social cost.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>the choice to not have a Facebook had no impact on my life whatsoever. I manage to have the same social life I've ever had, without Facebook. I can't be an outlier. I mean, really, you have no way of seeing what your friends are doing without logging in Facebook? No one can call/text/email/stop over to tell you? That's hard to imagine. Maybe there's a specific demographic that is affected in this manner?
- Santosh83 10y ago
  I think social networks like Facebook cover the case of when you want to broadcast your information or activities at once to hundreds possibly thousands of people. A single friend can call/text/drop in to tell me about something, but what if that friend wanted to lets say inform a 100 of his contacts of this without having to send 100 texts/call/emails and keeping track of all of them for responses? And social networks aren't just restricted to people but there are plenty of groups, organisations and clubs that want to reach out to not only all their members but potential audience too. Of course they can publish articles/ads in papers/magazines/TV, stick-up posters, send unsolicited email/calls etc., or they can have a Page/Group on Facebook.
  - 10y ago

maufl 10y ago

I think it's a bit more nuanced than "we all have a choice to not use them". I don't have WhatsApp because I refuse to create a new account on a closed system. This means I'm not in groups where plans are made between my friends and family. If I did not have Facebook or Google+ either, I wouldn't have been invited to parties etc ...

JustUhThought 10y ago

"I don't have a problem with Google, Facebook and Twitter dominating the web as such because I don't have any accounts with them: They are commercial entities filling a need. Capitalism at work I suppose." 1. It's not pure capitalism when there are political mechanisms in place to subsidize entire sectors of the economy and protect, through the arbitrary application of laws and regulations, some companies but no / at the expense of others. 2. Capitalism, on its own, by which I'm assuming you mean the market mechanism for price discovery and resource allocation, does not solve problems like the tragedy of the commons, it does not concern itself with things like civil rights or labor rights, it does not opporate satisfactorily in many sectors and circumstances such as building out public transportation before it is needed or financials panics or war time. 3. Neither whether or not you personally have a problem with them and whether nor not they are filling a commercial need are social issues. One is a personal issue. The other is a commercial issue. Perhaps you should consider the issue for a societal perspective.

JustUhThought 10y ago
Apologies for grammar / spelling. Typing on mobile phone, and this app I'm signed into doesn't allow for editing my comments.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Capital is extremely concerned about labor rights, in particular their suppression and elimination.
_Understated_ 10y ago
I am looking at the market as a tool to fulfil my needs, e.g. I need X and company Y springs up to provide it. I understand the political aspect of companies like google and the security nut in me says that they are in collusion with various other parties (I include governments in that) to give them access to their data (I have no evidence of this, I just think it's the case!)

athenot 10y ago

Do you really have a choice to not use them? If so: - You must not use android and have Google know your location for traffic purposes (and other ad-related data-mining) - You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association - You must block every single ad that originates from the Google ad network (and which is eager to learn your browsing habits) - You must never fly on an airline belonging to Star Alliance, as Google bought ITA Software (formerly known as Sabre) to get a hold of all the airline reservations done for those airlines - You must never send an email to someone with a Gmail address This is a case where choosing to not use Google is a bit more complicated than choosing to not drink Coke.

Qantourisc 10y ago
"You must ensure all your friends never post pictures of you on FB, preventing them from building a profile about you by association" -> Posting pictures about someone is iirc illegal in plenty of places without their consent, or at least borderline legal.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, can be photographed and that photo can be used by its owner in any legal way they see fit.
  - dchest 10y ago
    Wow, do you know the laws of all countries?
  - elchief 10y ago
    Not in Quebec, ftr
- mnx 10y ago
  Regardless of legality, you probably can get your friends not to post pictures of you. But it's a hassle.

darpa_escapee 10y ago

Their embedded scripts and ads on 3rd party sites are still tracking you.

maroonblazer 10y ago

> I feel that something monumentally bad will happen in the future related to the information these companies have amassed, something epically bad and the public will (perhaps) say "Enough is enough" but it will be too late... What's an example of something monumentally/epically bad happening involving this information?

_Understated_ 10y ago
I'm not sure to be honest: It's the tin-foil-hatter in me that is saying this but perhaps something like Google gets hacked and no one finds out for a couple of years giving someone plenty of time and data to do what they want, e.g. perhaps "out" a pile of prominent public figures or just plain extortion. I am not sure but we have seen breach after breach and no one is really batting an eyelid about it so it would have to be a massive breach leading to a massive problem.

nashashmi 10y ago

> say either "I'm not bothered" or "They would get bored looking at my stuff". In the past, we could have been indifferent to this massive trove of information collection because we relied on security of our personal lives through obscurity, or "needle in a haystack" philosophy. But with the advent of bots, we have opened the door for artificial intelligence by providing it a playground of information that it can run and develop algorithms on. This massive trove is not so massive anymore. And we should come to accept the doors of privacy have been virtually blown fully open now. The big question that remains is "What's next?" Self-imposed ethics? Thought police? Enslavement to an all-knowing being? Big brother?