7 ms·

(Disclosure: I have accepted a job offer at Facebook, but not yet started) Does Facebook really have a unique amount of data? Google also knows a lot about pe

(Disclosure: I have accepted a job offer at Facebook, but not yet started) Does Facebook really have a unique amount of data? Google also knows a lot about people through billions of searches a day. Apple can learn a lot through people's iDevices, and Google (again) or Samsung can do the same with Android. So can any cellular service provider, or anyone running coax or fiber into your home. The government can tap any or all of those. At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered. I'm not saying the author's concerns are invalid. I've had occasion to think about these exact issues a lot, and I'm sure many of my soon-to-be colleagues have too. The way I see it, Facebook and other social media occupy much the same position as phone companies used to, both in terms of how they facilitate interaction and in their privileged financial/infrastructural positions they occupy. There's good in that (e.g. ability to pursue the kinds of speculative projects that Bell Labs was famous for). There are also dangers, no question. The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else. There's no shortage of others ready to step in if Facebook alone were targeted with laws and regulations. Instead of worrying about Facebook specifically, we need to think about what a modern "common carrier" law should look like in the social-media age. Perhaps some kinds of regulations on use of information do make sense, but that dialog isn't likely to be very constructive so long as most of the people on one side seem to be free-market fundamentalists betraying their own principles by singling out one company among many.

throwawaymaroon 10y ago
rationalizing duplicity imagine what you'll tell the grandkids
foepys 10y ago
Facebook has the advantage that its users connect themselves with their friends, colleagues, and relatives. The users also give Facebook nearly all data about themselves (full name, phone number, date of birth, mother, father, etc.). People organize their events and talk about everything related to their lives. Facebook also provides their newsfeed and can track what they click and, most importantly, like. Unless you have a Gmail or a Google+ account Google has to guess. Google can guess pretty well but they still have to guess instead of just know. You search for something on Google and then go there. Facebook keeps you on its site and encourages you to comment on Facebook which then incentivizes others to stay on Facebook, too.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Facebook messenger is also unencrypted, and I'm not sure if their privacy policy grants permission to read the chats, but I know they definitely do insert Uber ads into messenger whenever a car or "ride" is mentioned.
strgrd 10y ago
> The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else. You will make a good Facebook worker drone
- Cursuviam 10y ago
  Imagine if MySpace won the war
  - bogomipz 10y ago
    I'm not sure what you comment means but I found it funny none the less :)
- notacoward 10y ago
  Would you rather have a Facebook with people who actually think about these kind of issues, or a Facebook without such people? At least there are debates within Facebook about such things. I've heard - publicly, long before I had any thoughts of working there myself - that they can get quite fierce. Never hear of such things at Twitter or Google. Is it better that people there just don't seem to give a damn? I don't think so. If people rule out or discourage internal regulation with nastiness like yours, all that's left is the external kind. I'm pretty sure that's against a lot of people's principles, but I guess those who failed the coding test are willing to sacrifice principles for revenge.
  - thr0waway1239 10y ago
    Look, here is a simple suggestion. Come back here in about 6 months after you join FB (settle down first). Since there is no realistic chance for FB to improve their practices within that timeframe, there will be one more complaint thread about some ethical practice or the other at that point. Give us a little inside peek into these supposed "fierce debates". Just participate and add something meaningful to the discussion by telling us the different positions people took in the debate and what the outcome was. We will even give you a handicap - you don't actually have to tell us who took which position. Since you seem to be so passionate about this, I don't think you are going to make up stuff. If you actually manage to do this, then not only will people here appreciate you, but more importantly, I am sure you will be doing a heck of a lot of good for your soon to be employer's image.
catdog 10y ago
> Does Facebook really have a unique amount of data? Google also knows a lot about people through billions of searches a day. Apple can learn a lot through people's iDevices, and Google (again) or Samsung can do the same with Android. In amount it's hard to tell. Google and other big players of surveillance capitalism also collect what they can. But it does not really make it any better to have an oligopoly which has a similar huge amount of knowledge about a huge amount of the population. > At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered. Maybe not until Zuckerberg is president of the USA ;). Also governments, esp. those who already run their own massive mass surveillance programs will use that privately collected data (at least in the long run if they do not do so already). > The way I see it, Facebook and other social media occupy much the same position as phone companies used to, both in terms of how they facilitate interaction … Not remotely. A far as I know they did not influence on a personal level with whom you interact, when that interaction takes place and surely not the topic of the interaction. Also Facebook today is a media company which does much more than providing infrastructure for communication of individuals. > The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else. You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of?
- notacoward 10y ago
  > You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of? Nice assumption of doing evil there. I'm saying someone else would fill Facebook's role whether it's evil or not. Do you disagree? Do you not see the others waiting in the wings, from direct clones to Twitter and Google and Amazon? Do you deny that they lack mostly the ability to collect as much information, but have the same will? Brin and Page would be glad to step into Facebook's shoes, or Bezos, or Thiel. How is that better? Again, whether it's evil or not, this kind of information gathering will continue and accelerate. Personifying it as Facebook or Zuckerberg just makes privacy a big game of Whack-a-Mole. Bills of attainder are both immoral and ineffectual. We need to address the what, not the who. The only lame excuse here is failing to work toward a viable long-term solution because it's easier (or more fun?) to demonize.
  - 10y ago
bogomipz 10y ago
>" At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered." No but they hand that data over to the surveillance state: https://www.aclunc.org/blog/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-provided-data-access-surveillance-product-marketed-target https://www.aclunc.org/blog/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-p... >"The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else" This is rather flimsy rationalization, see "The Futility of Illusion": https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions/ https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalization...
- HeavenBanned 10y ago
  >This is rather flimsy rationalization, see "The Futility of Illusion" I'm going to be honest with you, but there's a logical fallacy for just about every argument ever contrived. If one were to hold the standards of debate dialogue to the arcane, byzantine and endless rules of logical fallacies, then we couldn't argue for or against anything. Our judicial system would grind to a standstill if the rigor of Wikipedia's bible of logical fallacies were used as a gold standard. Every argument inherently has weaknesses and maybe even a logical fallacy, but that doesn't automatically make it a wrong argument in toto.

throwawaymaroon 10y ago

rationalizing duplicity imagine what you'll tell the grandkids

foepys 10y ago

Facebook has the advantage that its users connect themselves with their friends, colleagues, and relatives. The users also give Facebook nearly all data about themselves (full name, phone number, date of birth, mother, father, etc.). People organize their events and talk about everything related to their lives. Facebook also provides their newsfeed and can track what they click and, most importantly, like. Unless you have a Gmail or a Google+ account Google has to guess. Google can guess pretty well but they still have to guess instead of just know. You search for something on Google and then go there. Facebook keeps you on its site and encourages you to comment on Facebook which then incentivizes others to stay on Facebook, too.

chrischen 10y ago
Facebook messenger is also unencrypted, and I'm not sure if their privacy policy grants permission to read the chats, but I know they definitely do insert Uber ads into messenger whenever a car or "ride" is mentioned.

strgrd 10y ago

> The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else. You will make a good Facebook worker drone

Cursuviam 10y ago
Imagine if MySpace won the war
- bogomipz 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you comment means but I found it funny none the less :)
notacoward 10y ago
Would you rather have a Facebook with people who actually think about these kind of issues, or a Facebook without such people? At least there are debates within Facebook about such things. I've heard - publicly, long before I had any thoughts of working there myself - that they can get quite fierce. Never hear of such things at Twitter or Google. Is it better that people there just don't seem to give a damn? I don't think so. If people rule out or discourage internal regulation with nastiness like yours, all that's left is the external kind. I'm pretty sure that's against a lot of people's principles, but I guess those who failed the coding test are willing to sacrifice principles for revenge.
- thr0waway1239 10y ago
  Look, here is a simple suggestion. Come back here in about 6 months after you join FB (settle down first). Since there is no realistic chance for FB to improve their practices within that timeframe, there will be one more complaint thread about some ethical practice or the other at that point. Give us a little inside peek into these supposed "fierce debates". Just participate and add something meaningful to the discussion by telling us the different positions people took in the debate and what the outcome was. We will even give you a handicap - you don't actually have to tell us who took which position. Since you seem to be so passionate about this, I don't think you are going to make up stuff. If you actually manage to do this, then not only will people here appreciate you, but more importantly, I am sure you will be doing a heck of a lot of good for your soon to be employer's image.

catdog 10y ago

> Does Facebook really have a unique amount of data? Google also knows a lot about people through billions of searches a day. Apple can learn a lot through people's iDevices, and Google (again) or Samsung can do the same with Android. In amount it's hard to tell. Google and other big players of surveillance capitalism also collect what they can. But it does not really make it any better to have an oligopoly which has a similar huge amount of knowledge about a huge amount of the population. > At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered. Maybe not until Zuckerberg is president of the USA ;). Also governments, esp. those who already run their own massive mass surveillance programs will use that privately collected data (at least in the long run if they do not do so already). > The way I see it, Facebook and other social media occupy much the same position as phone companies used to, both in terms of how they facilitate interaction … Not remotely. A far as I know they did not influence on a personal level with whom you interact, when that interaction takes place and surely not the topic of the interaction. Also Facebook today is a media company which does much more than providing infrastructure for communication of individuals. > The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else. You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of?

notacoward 10y ago
> You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of? Nice assumption of doing evil there. I'm saying someone else would fill Facebook's role whether it's evil or not. Do you disagree? Do you not see the others waiting in the wings, from direct clones to Twitter and Google and Amazon? Do you deny that they lack mostly the ability to collect as much information, but have the same will? Brin and Page would be glad to step into Facebook's shoes, or Bezos, or Thiel. How is that better? Again, whether it's evil or not, this kind of information gathering will continue and accelerate. Personifying it as Facebook or Zuckerberg just makes privacy a big game of Whack-a-Mole. Bills of attainder are both immoral and ineffectual. We need to address the what, not the who. The only lame excuse here is failing to work toward a viable long-term solution because it's easier (or more fun?) to demonize.
- 10y ago

bogomipz 10y ago

>" At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered." No but they hand that data over to the surveillance state: https://www.aclunc.org/blog/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-provided-data-access-surveillance-product-marketed-target https://www.aclunc.org/blog/facebook-instagram-and-twitter-p... >"The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else" This is rather flimsy rationalization, see "The Futility of Illusion": https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions/ https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalization...

HeavenBanned 10y ago
>This is rather flimsy rationalization, see "The Futility of Illusion" I'm going to be honest with you, but there's a logical fallacy for just about every argument ever contrived. If one were to hold the standards of debate dialogue to the arcane, byzantine and endless rules of logical fallacies, then we couldn't argue for or against anything. Our judicial system would grind to a standstill if the rigor of Wikipedia's bible of logical fallacies were used as a gold standard. Every argument inherently has weaknesses and maybe even a logical fallacy, but that doesn't automatically make it a wrong argument in toto.