3 ms·

Given the conversation is regarding the US, the difference is obvious. Users choose to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whichever "Big Web" se

Given the conversation is regarding the US, the difference is obvious. Users choose to use Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whichever "Big Web" services they want. However, many people in US have absolutely zero choice regarding their ISP, because ISPs have monopolies in the regions they serve, there's no competition. It's inherently not a free market.

smsm42 9y ago
You can choose to post on Facebook. But you don't choose to be tracked by Facebook or Google - that happens whether you want it or not. I don't think people are as much worried about what they explicitly share as about what information gets collected without their knowledge.
maxsilver 9y ago
> Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Facebook is basically a modern day Equifax, that just happens to run a few apps on the side.
- Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
  In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them. However, your ISPs have the capability to control what you see and do, and potentially snoop on your activity, including private information that you'd never reveal to a friend. You can't say "Hey, that's not cool, I'll use a provider that doesn't do that", because in your area such a provider may simply not exist. I recognize not associating with anyone who uses Facebook is impractical; however ISPs have the potential to do so much more damage than Facebook (even if they're not doing so right now).
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'd argue that the really sneaky play here, and this applies to both network-effect web companies and ISPs, is data. Which is why ISPs fought privacy provisions so vehemently. ISPs control the last mile, so they're technically free to use DPI, packet injection, etc. But web companies control the application layer and have much more finely grained ability to instrument and track users (in their experiences or others'). And I'll lay a bet down right now that the killer app of the future is going to be predictive or ml-enabled experiences. Experiences that simply can't be created without the right data, at scale. And handing all that to scaled web companies without encouraging disruption via market regulation? That terrifies the hell out of me. Not mostly because I care about being tracked or my data, but because of what kind of market and world "data winner take all" produces in 10-20 years.

smsm42 9y ago

You can choose to post on Facebook. But you don't choose to be tracked by Facebook or Google - that happens whether you want it or not. I don't think people are as much worried about what they explicitly share as about what information gets collected without their knowledge.

maxsilver 9y ago

> Users chose to use Facebook I'd argue the opposite. Users can't not choose to use Facebook. Even if you have never had a Facebook account, even if you have never touched a smartphone in your entire life, even if you intentionally try to eradicate Facebook from your life -- Facebook still has a profile on you, full of data about you, from other people in your life who do use Facebook. Facebook isn't Facebook.com. Facebook is basically a modern day Equifax, that just happens to run a few apps on the side.

Benjamin_Dobell 9y ago
In general it's near impossible to stop third-parties collecting information about you. I'm by no means advocating such business practices! However, someone can always ask your friends for your phone number or home address; if your friends are stupid enough to give it up. You do however have some degree of control here, choose your friends, and choose what you reveal to them. However, your ISPs have the capability to control what you see and do, and potentially snoop on your activity, including private information that you'd never reveal to a friend. You can't say "Hey, that's not cool, I'll use a provider that doesn't do that", because in your area such a provider may simply not exist. I recognize not associating with anyone who uses Facebook is impractical; however ISPs have the potential to do so much more damage than Facebook (even if they're not doing so right now).
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'd argue that the really sneaky play here, and this applies to both network-effect web companies and ISPs, is data. Which is why ISPs fought privacy provisions so vehemently. ISPs control the last mile, so they're technically free to use DPI, packet injection, etc. But web companies control the application layer and have much more finely grained ability to instrument and track users (in their experiences or others'). And I'll lay a bet down right now that the killer app of the future is going to be predictive or ml-enabled experiences. Experiences that simply can't be created without the right data, at scale. And handing all that to scaled web companies without encouraging disruption via market regulation? That terrifies the hell out of me. Not mostly because I care about being tracked or my data, but because of what kind of market and world "data winner take all" produces in 10-20 years.