6 ms·

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate

Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. But no. Somehow, even with a declining youth demographic and widespread reports of less time spent on site and the CA fiasco, they still ended up with a growth of users in all markets. I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world, and what it'll look like -- not just one in which there is little privacy, but one in which privacy is not something that most people think about or value.

ASalazarMX 9y ago
> I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world If post-privacy worked both ways, I'm all for a future like that, it would be a transparency utopia.
- x220 9y ago
  But it will never truly be post-privacy. As always, the rich and powerful will carefully guard their privacy all while saying to the rest of the world that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    I thought the following was perhaps the most telling exchange of Zuckerberg's recent testimony before US Senators. Senator Dick Durbin: Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? Mark Zuckerberg: Um... [Long hesitation] No. Senator Dick Durbin: If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.
matte_black 9y ago
We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.
- warent 9y ago
  With things like Facebook shadow profiles, you're pretty much driven out of any sufficiently developed society if you want true privacy.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Shadow profiles aren’t public.
- putlake 9y ago
  > Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. We are already there. 3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email. Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported. Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1] You may not be on Facebook or WhatsApp but all your IRL friends and family are. They have your phone number in their contacts list and they have shared it with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and God knows how many other companies. They have taken your pictures and tagged you. Other than a very small number of privacy-conscious people, which includes living-off-the-grid doomsday preppers, the rest of the country is already there. 1. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-carriers-sell-users-personal-information-to-third-parties.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-ca...
  - gm-conspiracy 9y ago
    Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Many HN readers have a very myopic view of the world, constraining their perspective to what they already know and do. There is a whole army of people out there that don't have cellphones, email and don't buy from mega-corps, but those who frequent HN have little knowledge of or connection to those who live exclusively in meatspace.
malvosenior 9y ago
> I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world, and what it'll look like -- not just one in which there is little privacy, but one in which privacy is not something that most people think about or value. I think we already live in that reality. The media really honed in on the sharing of your friends list in the case of CA but if you think about it, there are plenty of services where that is public by default (like Twitter). I don't think most people consider that to be sensitive information.
drag0nballz 9y ago
I struggled with this initially with FB and then decided all posts would be public. Never post anything that I wouldn't want public, and not allow on my timeline posts from other people that I don't want public (I know there are limits to this). Targeted ads are fine to me. My bigger concern is the vast amount of data sharing on the back end that is easily non-anonymized and FB is a huge part of the problem.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  > Targeted ads are fine to me. This is actually the widespread attitude I imagine in a post-privacy world. It's different from people not understanding the implications of targeted ads and unknowingly accepting it. In this case, it's people that (presumably) understand this, and say, "well, that's okay."
  - drag0nballz 9y ago
    Well, we are in a "post-privacy" world already. At least in the US. I'm not OK with that. I'm ok with the concept of anonymized targeted ads, but also realize that this attitude enabled bad actors and loose regulation to tear down that wall.
- hrktb 9y ago
  Slightly off topic, but did you see you criteria for stuff you want to be public to change over the years ? My main frain from using facebook is not so much the visibility but the permanent nature of having personal stuff on the internet. I wonder how other people caring about what goes public deal with the issue.
- username223 9y ago
  "All posts public" seems like a smart approach: it makes your posts worthless to FB, since everyone else has that information. I went ahead and deleted my account, more for FB's clueless response to the CA thing than the "breach" itself. I haven't missed it so far, but if I make another one, I'll make everything public and banal.
downandout 9y ago
I think it was probably me you were arguing with. I disagree that we live in a world where people don’t value privacy. Rather, I think that most reasonable people understand that not all data is created equal. They expect even more privacy today than they’ve ever had on things that everyone wants to be private - think medical records - but are quite happy to publicly share other data, such as what they had for lunch, and expect no privacy around this type of data. These two ideals can peacefully coexist. So it is because Facebook is primarily meant for the latter type of data that most people outside of a very vocal minority don’t have a problem with their privacy practices. That, combined with legislation that will decimate any chance for the rise of a viable Facebook competitor (such as GDPR), is why their numbers will continue to grow for decades to come.
burger_moon 9y ago
>Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. I think it largely depends on who your friends are, and who you follow. All the people I follow on twitter for tech news were ranting and raving about all the FB scandals. Not a single one of my friends or people I follow outside of the tech bubble cared about it, most had no idea. If people spend their time on FB and insta, it's not hard to understand why they wouldn't even be aware of what was going on.
hardwaresofton 9y ago
Facebook's PR struggles (and users realizing how hostile the site is at it's core) is relatively recent -- most of that stuff happened Q2 of this year, not Q1, it won't be reflected till after right?
- kerng 9y ago
  I think that is correct and most comments miss that point. It's too early to tell.
mtgx 9y ago
Blackberry saw growth years after the iPhone came out, and years after a decline in its North American market. Global growth is not necessarily a sign of health for a company, in the long term.
InternetOfStuff 9y ago
I wonder if people will just engage far less (or not at all anymore), which is less obvious on these graphs. Say, if I check my FB twice a month to stay informed about events I might participate in, I'm still counted as a monthly active user, but I'm not active in a meaningful sense. Similarly, many people might stop interacting with FB (which, if nothing else, takes time to register: at least a month). Personally, I logged in for the last time in (I believe) 2012, but I won't delete my account just so my name stays "reserved".

ASalazarMX 9y ago

> I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world If post-privacy worked both ways, I'm all for a future like that, it would be a transparency utopia.

x220 9y ago
But it will never truly be post-privacy. As always, the rich and powerful will carefully guard their privacy all while saying to the rest of the world that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  I thought the following was perhaps the most telling exchange of Zuckerberg's recent testimony before US Senators. Senator Dick Durbin: Would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? Mark Zuckerberg: Um... [Long hesitation] No. Senator Dick Durbin: If you messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've messaged? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, I would probably not choose to do that publicly here.

matte_black 9y ago

We are not heading to a post-privacy world. Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. What you are merely seeing is people are ok with the amount of data that has been collected on them. The lack of true widespread outrage means we are either at the limit or we can still collect a bit more before users get really pissed.

warent 9y ago
With things like Facebook shadow profiles, you're pretty much driven out of any sufficiently developed society if you want true privacy.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Shadow profiles aren’t public.
putlake 9y ago
> Post-Privacy means no one can get privacy even if they want it. That has never been the case. We are already there. 3-letter govt agencies can listen track your calls, intercept your browsing and read your email. Unless you pay in cash and shop only at your local mom and pop shop, your purchases are already being tracked and reported. Your cellphone carrier is selling your information to third parties.[1] You may not be on Facebook or WhatsApp but all your IRL friends and family are. They have your phone number in their contacts list and they have shared it with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and God knows how many other companies. They have taken your pictures and tagged you. Other than a very small number of privacy-conscious people, which includes living-off-the-grid doomsday preppers, the rest of the country is already there. 1. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-carriers-sell-users-personal-information-to-third-parties.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/3233211/security/mobile-ca...
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  Why do you assume everybody is using email, has a cellphone, and only buys goods from mega-corps?
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Many HN readers have a very myopic view of the world, constraining their perspective to what they already know and do. There is a whole army of people out there that don't have cellphones, email and don't buy from mega-corps, but those who frequent HN have little knowledge of or connection to those who live exclusively in meatspace.

malvosenior 9y ago

> I've wondered sometimes whether we're headed towards a post-privacy world, and what it'll look like -- not just one in which there is little privacy, but one in which privacy is not something that most people think about or value. I think we already live in that reality. The media really honed in on the sharing of your friends list in the case of CA but if you think about it, there are plenty of services where that is public by default (like Twitter). I don't think most people consider that to be sensitive information.

drag0nballz 9y ago

I struggled with this initially with FB and then decided all posts would be public. Never post anything that I wouldn't want public, and not allow on my timeline posts from other people that I don't want public (I know there are limits to this). Targeted ads are fine to me. My bigger concern is the vast amount of data sharing on the back end that is easily non-anonymized and FB is a huge part of the problem.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
> Targeted ads are fine to me. This is actually the widespread attitude I imagine in a post-privacy world. It's different from people not understanding the implications of targeted ads and unknowingly accepting it. In this case, it's people that (presumably) understand this, and say, "well, that's okay."
- drag0nballz 9y ago
  Well, we are in a "post-privacy" world already. At least in the US. I'm not OK with that. I'm ok with the concept of anonymized targeted ads, but also realize that this attitude enabled bad actors and loose regulation to tear down that wall.
hrktb 9y ago
Slightly off topic, but did you see you criteria for stuff you want to be public to change over the years ? My main frain from using facebook is not so much the visibility but the permanent nature of having personal stuff on the internet. I wonder how other people caring about what goes public deal with the issue.
username223 9y ago
"All posts public" seems like a smart approach: it makes your posts worthless to FB, since everyone else has that information. I went ahead and deleted my account, more for FB's clueless response to the CA thing than the "breach" itself. I haven't missed it so far, but if I make another one, I'll make everything public and banal.

downandout 9y ago

I think it was probably me you were arguing with. I disagree that we live in a world where people don’t value privacy. Rather, I think that most reasonable people understand that not all data is created equal. They expect even more privacy today than they’ve ever had on things that everyone wants to be private - think medical records - but are quite happy to publicly share other data, such as what they had for lunch, and expect no privacy around this type of data. These two ideals can peacefully coexist. So it is because Facebook is primarily meant for the latter type of data that most people outside of a very vocal minority don’t have a problem with their privacy practices. That, combined with legislation that will decimate any chance for the rise of a viable Facebook competitor (such as GDPR), is why their numbers will continue to grow for decades to come.

burger_moon 9y ago

>Yeah, I may have to eat some crow from an argument the other day with another HN user. Surveys and #deleteFacebook and protests and so forth seemed to indicate that people did finally start getting interested in their own privacy. I think it largely depends on who your friends are, and who you follow. All the people I follow on twitter for tech news were ranting and raving about all the FB scandals. Not a single one of my friends or people I follow outside of the tech bubble cared about it, most had no idea. If people spend their time on FB and insta, it's not hard to understand why they wouldn't even be aware of what was going on.

hardwaresofton 9y ago

Facebook's PR struggles (and users realizing how hostile the site is at it's core) is relatively recent -- most of that stuff happened Q2 of this year, not Q1, it won't be reflected till after right?

kerng 9y ago
I think that is correct and most comments miss that point. It's too early to tell.

mtgx 9y ago

Blackberry saw growth years after the iPhone came out, and years after a decline in its North American market. Global growth is not necessarily a sign of health for a company, in the long term.

InternetOfStuff 9y ago

I wonder if people will just engage far less (or not at all anymore), which is less obvious on these graphs. Say, if I check my FB twice a month to stay informed about events I might participate in, I'm still counted as a monthly active user, but I'm not active in a meaningful sense. Similarly, many people might stop interacting with FB (which, if nothing else, takes time to register: at least a month). Personally, I logged in for the last time in (I believe) 2012, but I won't delete my account just so my name stays "reserved".