7 ms·

I think it's clear from nearly a decade's worth of Facebook's trysts with privacy issues that it is a company that doesn't have a fundamental stance that's in f

I think it's clear from nearly a decade's worth of Facebook's trysts with privacy issues that it is a company that doesn't have a fundamental stance that's in favor of user privacy. Over and over again it has either intentionally built features that disregard privacy, or put in wrong defaults, or simply brushed off criticisms when others have misused Facebook. At this point we should be asking ourselves why we expect Facebook to change on its own. There isn't a good alternative to Facebook (given the network effect and the legitimate features that Facebook provides), but it's probably important that there be public oversight of Facebook (and any other social media company that becomes large and powerful as Facebook). We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. If the leadership is so reluctant to tackle these issues head-on, maybe they need to be replaced with a humbler set of leaders.

supertrope 9y ago
I agree that FB has shown time and time again that they consider user privacy a mere road bump. Pervasive dark patterns. I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. Advertising supported websites will always remain loyal to their customers: advertisers. Users are not willing to pay money and requiring a cover charge hurts adoption. What used to be called spyware is now "analytics." People proudly proclaim targeted advertising as a benefit for users. If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law. It's hard to be a sustainable business if everyone else is racing to the bottom. I'm waiting on FB's marketshare to tank.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 9y ago
  > I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. - and - > If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law. You're almost disagreeing with yourself unless you see a significant difference between regulatory oversight and privacy laws. Both reflect government authority over Facebook (etc.) to protect its citizens. Myself, I would be happy with either option. We have neither now.
  - mcny 9y ago
    I don't always want privacy though. Is privacy at odds with accountability? We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy. We have a lot of information that some people know but most do not. We have to think carefully what is private and what isn't. For example, your employer knows how much they pay you. I say it isn't private.
    - vageli 9y ago
      There are varying degrees of privacy. Just because you share some information with some people doesn't mean you want to share all information with everyone. That said, I agree that opaque salaries hurt only the employee as the other side of the market (employer) has full knowledge.
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy. > For example, your employer knows how much they pay you. I say it isn't private. It's also likely that your employer has shared your salary with other employers, so when you interview for a new job they know how much you're currently making without having to ask. For an example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_Number http://acceptance.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ http://acceptance.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ I requested my report recently, and it had the last 5 years of my salary history, updated monthly. Salary data isn't private, because everyone who can use it against you already has access.
  - supertrope 9y ago
    To be clearer I was contrasting regulations on just Facebook or just social media companies and an informed consent opt-in privacy law covering all personal information. Sector specific privacy laws already prohibit your phone company and bank from using your logs for targeted advertising or directly selling it to the highest bidder. When there is a criminal or civil liability to hoarding personal information that can be abused internally or leaked, companies will think twice before setting up such databases. Of course there will still be the Ubers and Equifaxes of the world but it will shift the burden to the data brokers who will no longer be able to fall back to noting that compiling scarily detailed dossiers is legal.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
I think you answered your own question. The reason people expected Facebook to change is because people don't seem to understand that the general rule is that when a large company makes a statement it is invariably based around public relations. They will say whatever they think it is that will receive the most positive response from the population, regardless of the truthfulness of that statement, at least so long as it cannot open them up to legal counter action. Facebook's behavior is not going to change with a humbler set of leaders. Their entire fundamental business model is based around collecting sensitive information. And they're starting to reach the absolute extremes of market saturation meaning that the only way they can continue to grow is to offer more effective advertising which relies on harvesting even more data from their users. If you want a social media service that respects users' privacy and rights then it would need to be either a non-profit decentralized service, or a for-payment service. The former would suffer from lacking the funds to reach a critical mass, and the latter would fail because nobody's going to pay to join a small social media service - let alone the subscription model that would be necessary.
jamesmiller5 9y ago
All I need is a better chat app, that Facebook won't buy. I can now text, voice record, send photos/selfies and video messages easily to my social circles. Connecting to second degree connections is fast and everyone I know has an account. I want to leave Facebook but I can't give up such an amazing chat experience that keeps me connected to my family and close friends. Even if I got my immediate family to use a different app, I'd have to keep Facebook for old friends :( . (edit, spelling)
- dx034 9y ago
  Only using whatsapp without other facebook accounts should still be fine. Whatsapp has end2end encryption (unlike FB messenger) and if you don't use other FB products they can't use your data for ads. Obviously not as good as an independent messenger but will cause the same revenue loss for FB.
  - oarsinsync 9y ago
    I believe that’s only text. Try sending someone a video. Takes a while. Try forwarding that video to someone else moments later. Happens pretty quickly. Same applies with photos in my experience. I’d assume voice notes,location pins, etc are also subject to this as well.
    - fwn 9y ago
      WhatsApp reduces the quality of your media and saves it in a second folder of your gallery. If you forward already converted media it will be taken from the gallery in it's compressed, substantially smaller version.
      - oarsinsync 9y ago
        On iPhones it has a splash screen for compression and then a separate spinner in the chat for the upload progress for videos. That second upload spinner doesn’t occur for immediately forwarded videos.
colordrops 9y ago
> We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. That's an extremely insightful statement but unfortunately also describes the DNC and RNC, which are already in control of the US.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hellohellohihi 9y ago
  https://vimeo.com/263108265#t=3513s https://vimeo.com/263108265#t=3513s Tangential sidenote on who is actually in control. This 5 minute snippet from the new documentary 'Do You Trust This Computer?' presents an interesting perspective on how easily FB can be used to influence entire nations. Poses an interesting question of who is driving our electorate. Seems like if FB acting in it's own best interest to promote user engagement, then it'll be very hard for them to prevent bad actors from weaponizing these very algorithms to influence large swaths of people.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  The DNC/RNC really only matter for Presidential politics. The State and county committees are what matter for lower elections, including House and Senate elections.
  - erric 9y ago
    I only count two seats which are not either (D) or (R). I’d say the DNC and RNC still matter quite a bit for these elections.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/17/1653154/-DNC-DCCC-DSCC-How-to-decipher-the-alphabet-soup-of-Democratic-Party-organizations https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/17/1653154/-DNC-DCCC... The DCCC handles House elections and is nothing to do with the DNC. DSCC is the same for the Senate.
joering2 9y ago
This is NOT really that big of an issue. We make it this way because USA does not have any serious regulations on data privacy. In most European countries if someone offers your info, such as DOB, credit card balance, property ownership, a prosecutor knocks on his doors with handcuffs, even if temporary. And if you ran major bulk operation, you go behind bars for many years. No scandal in USA will make any difference if we don't implement draconian laws. Looks what's going on around GDPR; it's not here YET meanwhile everyone knows about it and every email provider shakes his pants. Every company I do business with already send me some sort of acknowledgment or their own policy to accommodate GDPR and these are not even European companies! I am all for small government, but we clearly need a brand new Department that will regulate such behemoths like Youtube (which has power to squash your first amendment) and Google/Facebook et al that continuously makes money off of their immoral behavior with your information.

supertrope 9y ago

I agree that FB has shown time and time again that they consider user privacy a mere road bump. Pervasive dark patterns. I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. Advertising supported websites will always remain loyal to their customers: advertisers. Users are not willing to pay money and requiring a cover charge hurts adoption. What used to be called spyware is now "analytics." People proudly proclaim targeted advertising as a benefit for users. If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law. It's hard to be a sustainable business if everyone else is racing to the bottom. I'm waiting on FB's marketshare to tank.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 9y ago
> I disagree that specific regulatory oversight is needed. - and - > If we want privacy to be respected we need a right to privacy law. You're almost disagreeing with yourself unless you see a significant difference between regulatory oversight and privacy laws. Both reflect government authority over Facebook (etc.) to protect its citizens. Myself, I would be happy with either option. We have neither now.
- mcny 9y ago
  I don't always want privacy though. Is privacy at odds with accountability? We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy. We have a lot of information that some people know but most do not. We have to think carefully what is private and what isn't. For example, your employer knows how much they pay you. I say it isn't private.
  - vageli 9y ago
    There are varying degrees of privacy. Just because you share some information with some people doesn't mean you want to share all information with everyone. That said, I agree that opaque salaries hurt only the employee as the other side of the market (employer) has full knowledge.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > We were talking about how disclosing salary and compensation information for everyone would help everyone in the long run and some people objected saying they want privacy. > For example, your employer knows how much they pay you. I say it isn't private. It's also likely that your employer has shared your salary with other employers, so when you interview for a new job they know how much you're currently making without having to ask. For an example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_Number http://acceptance.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ http://acceptance.theworknumber.com/Employees/DataReport/ I requested my report recently, and it had the last 5 years of my salary history, updated monthly. Salary data isn't private, because everyone who can use it against you already has access.
- supertrope 9y ago
  To be clearer I was contrasting regulations on just Facebook or just social media companies and an informed consent opt-in privacy law covering all personal information. Sector specific privacy laws already prohibit your phone company and bank from using your logs for targeted advertising or directly selling it to the highest bidder. When there is a criminal or civil liability to hoarding personal information that can be abused internally or leaked, companies will think twice before setting up such databases. Of course there will still be the Ubers and Equifaxes of the world but it will shift the burden to the data brokers who will no longer be able to fall back to noting that compiling scarily detailed dossiers is legal.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

I think you answered your own question. The reason people expected Facebook to change is because people don't seem to understand that the general rule is that when a large company makes a statement it is invariably based around public relations. They will say whatever they think it is that will receive the most positive response from the population, regardless of the truthfulness of that statement, at least so long as it cannot open them up to legal counter action. Facebook's behavior is not going to change with a humbler set of leaders. Their entire fundamental business model is based around collecting sensitive information. And they're starting to reach the absolute extremes of market saturation meaning that the only way they can continue to grow is to offer more effective advertising which relies on harvesting even more data from their users. If you want a social media service that respects users' privacy and rights then it would need to be either a non-profit decentralized service, or a for-payment service. The former would suffer from lacking the funds to reach a critical mass, and the latter would fail because nobody's going to pay to join a small social media service - let alone the subscription model that would be necessary.

jamesmiller5 9y ago

All I need is a better chat app, that Facebook won't buy. I can now text, voice record, send photos/selfies and video messages easily to my social circles. Connecting to second degree connections is fast and everyone I know has an account. I want to leave Facebook but I can't give up such an amazing chat experience that keeps me connected to my family and close friends. Even if I got my immediate family to use a different app, I'd have to keep Facebook for old friends :( . (edit, spelling)

dx034 9y ago
Only using whatsapp without other facebook accounts should still be fine. Whatsapp has end2end encryption (unlike FB messenger) and if you don't use other FB products they can't use your data for ads. Obviously not as good as an independent messenger but will cause the same revenue loss for FB.
- oarsinsync 9y ago
  I believe that’s only text. Try sending someone a video. Takes a while. Try forwarding that video to someone else moments later. Happens pretty quickly. Same applies with photos in my experience. I’d assume voice notes,location pins, etc are also subject to this as well.
  - fwn 9y ago
    WhatsApp reduces the quality of your media and saves it in a second folder of your gallery. If you forward already converted media it will be taken from the gallery in it's compressed, substantially smaller version.
    - oarsinsync 9y ago
      On iPhones it has a splash screen for compression and then a separate spinner in the chat for the upload progress for videos. That second upload spinner doesn’t occur for immediately forwarded videos.

colordrops 9y ago

> We should also be asking ourselves whether an organization that has the power to be so influential in the destinies of nations should be run by executives who see every issue as a PR issue to be dealt with, rather than ones that should teach them fundamental lessons. That's an extremely insightful statement but unfortunately also describes the DNC and RNC, which are already in control of the US.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hellohellohihi 9y ago
https://vimeo.com/263108265#t=3513s https://vimeo.com/263108265#t=3513s Tangential sidenote on who is actually in control. This 5 minute snippet from the new documentary 'Do You Trust This Computer?' presents an interesting perspective on how easily FB can be used to influence entire nations. Poses an interesting question of who is driving our electorate. Seems like if FB acting in it's own best interest to promote user engagement, then it'll be very hard for them to prevent bad actors from weaponizing these very algorithms to influence large swaths of people.
saalweachter 9y ago
The DNC/RNC really only matter for Presidential politics. The State and county committees are what matter for lower elections, including House and Senate elections.
- erric 9y ago
  I only count two seats which are not either (D) or (R). I’d say the DNC and RNC still matter quite a bit for these elections.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/17/1653154/-DNC-DCCC-DSCC-How-to-decipher-the-alphabet-soup-of-Democratic-Party-organizations https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/17/1653154/-DNC-DCCC... The DCCC handles House elections and is nothing to do with the DNC. DSCC is the same for the Senate.

joering2 9y ago

This is NOT really that big of an issue. We make it this way because USA does not have any serious regulations on data privacy. In most European countries if someone offers your info, such as DOB, credit card balance, property ownership, a prosecutor knocks on his doors with handcuffs, even if temporary. And if you ran major bulk operation, you go behind bars for many years. No scandal in USA will make any difference if we don't implement draconian laws. Looks what's going on around GDPR; it's not here YET meanwhile everyone knows about it and every email provider shakes his pants. Every company I do business with already send me some sort of acknowledgment or their own policy to accommodate GDPR and these are not even European companies! I am all for small government, but we clearly need a brand new Department that will regulate such behemoths like Youtube (which has power to squash your first amendment) and Google/Facebook et al that continuously makes money off of their immoral behavior with your information.