4 ms·

> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if th

> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Even assuming you have the data, Facebook's value is in the IP and ML algorithms. Facebook sure as hell isn't giving those up. Even assuming all that, how does it take us further forward than what we have now? There's a lot of arguments to the effect of 'something needs to be done' but not much detail on what an alternative looks like.

nothrabannosir 9y ago
> What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Making scraping of your personal data a statutory right, including the building and distributing of tools for it. No need to force FB to publish anything, just prevent them from blocking anyone who uses a tool to scrape their own data through the regular UI. This should draw the boundaries of responsibility in the right place. This would allow e.g. a “messaging” bridge which automatically interfaces with the messages part of the site, and bridges it to any tool (or API) you want. At least per user per account. This would force de facto federation without putting a burden on FB.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  But then this brings us back to square 1, "tools" can just scrape user messages/content without authorization and then use that to collect data on those users. If the whole point is to solve the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, this is just going to make the situation 10x worse.
simias 9y ago
I genuinely don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just against shooting off the whole idea that there might be an answer worth considering because of the dogma held by some people that "regulations == bad". Let's wait until we actually see what these people propose (which at this point might very well be nothing at all), then we can scream bloody outrage that our freedom is in danger. If something needs to be done let's at least give one chance to the people who seem to be trying to do something.
salawat 9y ago
How about "information submitted by a person to a third party is still considered private"? The disingenuous loophole the government is so fond of whereby you sharing information with a third party suddenly negates ALL expectation of privacy and 4th Amendment protections is a farce. Signing up for Facebook should not be a "first sale" of your personal information or right to privacy. Of course, no tech company that has ridden the free ride of harvesting personal data would be on board with ANYTHING like that. They can keep their IP and algorithms if they want, but if I don't consent to the fruits of my existence being fed through them, then that is where it needs to stop. No company should feel safe with involuntarily increasing a user's digital footprint. Period. That covers not asking to and being explicitly told not to. A person has an inalienable right to maintain final authority over their digital presence. The only exception that makes sense to me is for the press. Though I haven't thought that implication through completely yet.

nothrabannosir 9y ago

> What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Making scraping of your personal data a statutory right, including the building and distributing of tools for it. No need to force FB to publish anything, just prevent them from blocking anyone who uses a tool to scrape their own data through the regular UI. This should draw the boundaries of responsibility in the right place. This would allow e.g. a “messaging” bridge which automatically interfaces with the messages part of the site, and bridges it to any tool (or API) you want. At least per user per account. This would force de facto federation without putting a burden on FB.

nv-vn 9y ago
But then this brings us back to square 1, "tools" can just scrape user messages/content without authorization and then use that to collect data on those users. If the whole point is to solve the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, this is just going to make the situation 10x worse.

simias 9y ago

I genuinely don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just against shooting off the whole idea that there might be an answer worth considering because of the dogma held by some people that "regulations == bad". Let's wait until we actually see what these people propose (which at this point might very well be nothing at all), then we can scream bloody outrage that our freedom is in danger. If something needs to be done let's at least give one chance to the people who seem to be trying to do something.

salawat 9y ago

How about "information submitted by a person to a third party is still considered private"? The disingenuous loophole the government is so fond of whereby you sharing information with a third party suddenly negates ALL expectation of privacy and 4th Amendment protections is a farce. Signing up for Facebook should not be a "first sale" of your personal information or right to privacy. Of course, no tech company that has ridden the free ride of harvesting personal data would be on board with ANYTHING like that. They can keep their IP and algorithms if they want, but if I don't consent to the fruits of my existence being fed through them, then that is where it needs to stop. No company should feel safe with involuntarily increasing a user's digital footprint. Period. That covers not asking to and being explicitly told not to. A person has an inalienable right to maintain final authority over their digital presence. The only exception that makes sense to me is for the press. Though I haven't thought that implication through completely yet.