5 ms·

That snark is uncalled for. Stopping using WhatsApp and Facebook would make communication with some groups much more difficult for me, for example, because ever

by lbebber 10y ago

That snark is uncalled for. Stopping using WhatsApp and Facebook would make communication with some groups much more difficult for me, for example, because everyone uses them.

cortesoft 10y ago
Ok, so in return Facebook and WhatsApp get to learn about you. That is the cost of doing business with them. Why is that cost so different than the normal cost we pay for things (cash money)? Yes, things we value have costs. It is always a sacrifice to go without that thing, but if we want to AVOID having to go without it, we have to pay something. "I can't believe you are making me pay this cell phone bill! I have no choice but to use it, and you are CHARGING ME MONEY for it?! This is outrageous!" I mean, there are things we need even more that we have to pay for - food, shelter, etc. In order to get something from someone else, you have to give them something in return that they value. That is just how the world works.
- bikamonki 10y ago
  When you pay cash your business relation ends there. When you pay with your personal information...it never ends.
- lbebber 10y ago
  You misunderstood my comment. My point is that quitting WhatsApp, when everybody around you uses it, is not simple and does not warrant that snark.
- Gracana 10y ago
  If I give someone money, it is their money and they can do what they want with it, it does not matter to me. If I give someone information about myself, it's still connected to me, but now it's under their control. They can use it to exploit or harm me, and so can anyone they sell it to, or anyone who steals it. It's that indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important. That's why we consider it differently.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but when you make a payment online, the recipient learns your legal name, probably a billing address i.e. where you live, and you probably don't even think about it. I do see a lot of double standards in these discussions. People never articulate who is specifically being hurt or what the specific problem is. Instead allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. If you're rightly scared about the combination of information and force, it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      and who do you think gives that data to the government?
    - type0 10y ago
      > ... if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. If you're rightly scared about the combination of information and force, it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps. In the meantime government surveillance agencies can piggyback just fine on information collected from fb, emails etc and can continue to spend money on even more scary surveillance tools. I can give you personal example of harm: family member was a victim of fraud because of the leaked information online. I would argue that the existence of social media and it being promiscuous with our data makes it extremely easy for criminals. > it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps. Oh, but it's not harmless when it gets in wrong hands. The only precaution is to get assurance that those services don't collect your data indefinitely and more than necessary.
    - newscracker 10y ago
      > allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. It only takes one affected person to know what it's like to be spied on and abused with the information at hand. We don't need an entire country to come to shambles to know what such vast information collection could result in. You also seem to be making assumptions that governments cannot force a private company to part with data or that those in power cannot manage to create a warrant just to pay lip service to "due process". Additionally, there is also potential for abuse of the data by the private company's employees. Like how LOVEINT [1][2] exposed the fact that NSA employees used their privileges to spy on and track people in their personal spheres of life, Facebook employees may be doing the same without any kind of monitoring at all. We just don't know yet. [1]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/loveint-on-his-first-day-of-work-nsa-employee-spied-on-ex-girlfriend/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/loveint-on-his-fi...
rdiddly 10y ago
The larger point: Has it been meaningfully asked, and conclusively decided, that that amount of communication with those groups is a positive benefit to your life, large enough to justify all the hassle and humiliation of dealing with Facebook? Without adding any further snark, I would just like to offer my (probably fairly extreme on the continuum) viewpoint of, maybe fuck those groups.

by lbebber 10y ago

That snark is uncalled for. Stopping using WhatsApp and Facebook would make communication with some groups much more difficult for me, for example, because everyone uses them.

cortesoft 10y ago

Ok, so in return Facebook and WhatsApp get to learn about you. That is the cost of doing business with them. Why is that cost so different than the normal cost we pay for things (cash money)? Yes, things we value have costs. It is always a sacrifice to go without that thing, but if we want to AVOID having to go without it, we have to pay something. "I can't believe you are making me pay this cell phone bill! I have no choice but to use it, and you are CHARGING ME MONEY for it?! This is outrageous!" I mean, there are things we need even more that we have to pay for - food, shelter, etc. In order to get something from someone else, you have to give them something in return that they value. That is just how the world works.

bikamonki 10y ago
When you pay cash your business relation ends there. When you pay with your personal information...it never ends.
lbebber 10y ago
You misunderstood my comment. My point is that quitting WhatsApp, when everybody around you uses it, is not simple and does not warrant that snark.
Gracana 10y ago
If I give someone money, it is their money and they can do what they want with it, it does not matter to me. If I give someone information about myself, it's still connected to me, but now it's under their control. They can use it to exploit or harm me, and so can anyone they sell it to, or anyone who steals it. It's that indeterminate potential for future abuse that makes it important. That's why we consider it differently.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but when you make a payment online, the recipient learns your legal name, probably a billing address i.e. where you live, and you probably don't even think about it. I do see a lot of double standards in these discussions. People never articulate who is specifically being hurt or what the specific problem is. Instead allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. If you're rightly scared about the combination of information and force, it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    and who do you think gives that data to the government?
  - type0 10y ago
    > ... if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. If you're rightly scared about the combination of information and force, it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps. In the meantime government surveillance agencies can piggyback just fine on information collected from fb, emails etc and can continue to spend money on even more scary surveillance tools. I can give you personal example of harm: family member was a victim of fraud because of the leaked information online. I would argue that the existence of social media and it being promiscuous with our data makes it extremely easy for criminals. > it's government surveillance that deserves the attention, not harmless chat apps. Oh, but it's not harmless when it gets in wrong hands. The only precaution is to get assurance that those services don't collect your data indefinitely and more than necessary.
  - newscracker 10y ago
    > allusions to fascist governments are made, which would be fine, if these companies were governments. But they aren't: they have no power. It only takes one affected person to know what it's like to be spied on and abused with the information at hand. We don't need an entire country to come to shambles to know what such vast information collection could result in. You also seem to be making assumptions that governments cannot force a private company to part with data or that those in power cannot manage to create a warrant just to pay lip service to "due process". Additionally, there is also potential for abuse of the data by the private company's employees. Like how LOVEINT [1][2] exposed the fact that NSA employees used their privileges to spy on and track people in their personal spheres of life, Facebook employees may be doing the same without any kind of monitoring at all. We just don't know yet. [1]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-... [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/loveint-on-his-first-day-of-work-nsa-employee-spied-on-ex-girlfriend/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/loveint-on-his-fi...

rdiddly 10y ago

The larger point: Has it been meaningfully asked, and conclusively decided, that that amount of communication with those groups is a positive benefit to your life, large enough to justify all the hassle and humiliation of dealing with Facebook? Without adding any further snark, I would just like to offer my (probably fairly extreme on the continuum) viewpoint of, maybe fuck those groups.