4 ms·

> In what world does GDPR legally require facebook to allow me to export my friend's birthdays and their extended profile information? It doesn’t and that’s no

by bertil 9y ago

> In what world does GDPR legally require facebook to allow me to export my friend's birthdays and their extended profile information? It doesn’t and that’s not what the API allows today. At the time this was a feature, there were arguments that allowing that would help new competing services to emerge, but they never became law. Because they did not, competing services now rely on a handful of people claiming they switched, rather than have more effective (or invasive) ways to remind people to switch. That means that it’s extremely unlikely that any project competing with Facebook, many of which have recently felt a gust of interest will actually take off meaningfully. So the reaction you are asking now from Facebook, thinking you are being critical and provocative, happened six years ago and locked them as a monopoly. I guess that’s hindsight. > That is very distinct from what you claimed. Yes, because what I claimed is that external activists, developers who set up OpenSocial (OAuth and OAuth 2.0, Activity Streams, and Portable Contacts) were the ones asking for it. > Now you seem to be blaming people for using Facebook at all? I’m not blaming anyone (except you): I’m just stating that having a social service means sharing access to personal information. Once information is shared, you have to trust people who are not the person who the information is about, but their friends, with said information. Facebook empowers that trust: you can learn about how long lost friends are doing, which is a great way to leverage that trust; or you can sell their details for a dollar, which is less great.

shkkmo 9y ago
> At the time this was a feature, there were arguments that allowing that would help new competing services to emerge, but they never became law. >"not allowing that export at all would probably be met with legally-binding criticism" What legally binding criticism were you talking about? Why did you bring up the GDPR to defend this statement? > Because they did not, competing services now rely on a handful of people claiming they switched, rather than have more effective (or invasive) ways to remind people to switch. That means that it’s extremely unlikely that any project competing with Facebook, many of which have recently felt a gust of interest will actually take off meaningfully. So the reaction you are asking now from Facebook, thinking you are being critical and provocative, happened six years ago and locked them as a monopoly. I guess that’s hindsight. Oh please tell me, what reaction am I asking for? Are you saying we should have legally force Facebook to continue letting CA strip mine users data? WFT are you talking about? > The main use-case that was discussed then was to empower services like Riot, to encourage competition — something that, surprisingly, Facebook was very supportive of at the time. > Yes, because what I claimed is that external activists, developers who set up OpenSocial (OAuth and OAuth 2.0, Activity Streams, and Portable Contacts) were the ones asking for it. No, you never claimed that at all. You claimed that facebook was discussing this API mainly as a means of fostering competition. > Once information is shared, you have to trust people who are not the person who the information is about. And you have to trust the platform to respect your privacy and not give any random quiz app full access. Obviously Facebook is not trust worthy and should not be given this information. > Facebook empowers that trust: you can learn about how long lost friends are doing Facebook doesn't empower trust at all: it abuses it to make money off of our information.

by bertil 9y ago

shkkmo 9y ago

> At the time this was a feature, there were arguments that allowing that would help new competing services to emerge, but they never became law. >"not allowing that export at all would probably be met with legally-binding criticism" What legally binding criticism were you talking about? Why did you bring up the GDPR to defend this statement? > Because they did not, competing services now rely on a handful of people claiming they switched, rather than have more effective (or invasive) ways to remind people to switch. That means that it’s extremely unlikely that any project competing with Facebook, many of which have recently felt a gust of interest will actually take off meaningfully. So the reaction you are asking now from Facebook, thinking you are being critical and provocative, happened six years ago and locked them as a monopoly. I guess that’s hindsight. Oh please tell me, what reaction am I asking for? Are you saying we should have legally force Facebook to continue letting CA strip mine users data? WFT are you talking about? > The main use-case that was discussed then was to empower services like Riot, to encourage competition — something that, surprisingly, Facebook was very supportive of at the time. > Yes, because what I claimed is that external activists, developers who set up OpenSocial (OAuth and OAuth 2.0, Activity Streams, and Portable Contacts) were the ones asking for it. No, you never claimed that at all. You claimed that facebook was discussing this API mainly as a means of fostering competition. > Once information is shared, you have to trust people who are not the person who the information is about. And you have to trust the platform to respect your privacy and not give any random quiz app full access. Obviously Facebook is not trust worthy and should not be given this information. > Facebook empowers that trust: you can learn about how long lost friends are doing Facebook doesn't empower trust at all: it abuses it to make money off of our information.