27 ms·

Honestly, I hope they do! Simply put, the company is ethically bankrupt and deserve to be made an example of how not to run a social network. You can't go se

Honestly, I hope they do! Simply put, the company is ethically bankrupt and deserve to be made an example of how not to run a social network. You can't go selling peoples private messages to Netflix (the sheer audacity of that just blows my mind!). You can't allow peoples private data to be sold to data analytics firms that are trying to sway elections. Facebook is built on the belief that people don't need privacy and I think that's fundamentally wrong. As an aside, I hope people continue migrating to https://MeWe.com https://MeWe.com which has a clear privacy bill of rights at its core and zero ads. It makes money in a far more traditional approach by charging for "pages" and extended emotions etc.

arethuza 8y ago
"zero ads" So how do they make money? Edit: They are doing the freemium model - its in their FAQ https://mewe.com/faq https://mewe.com/faq
vanattab 8y ago
Ahh yes the very traditional method of charging for extended emotions... Better then facebook I suppose.
dominotw 8y ago
> I hope people continue migrating to http://MeWe.com http://MeWe.com which has a clear privacy bill of rights at its core and zero ads. It makes money in a far more traditional approach by charging for "pages" and extended emotions etc. What is the guarantee that they stick to this and not got FB route later. Why should I trust "Sgrouples Inc."?
- AndrewSChapman 8y ago
  If they changed it would be suicide. Their whole raison d'être is around privacy and no censorship.
  - fortylove 8y ago
    I'm not so sure that'll still be true once they have a critical mass of users on there. Perhaps a lot of users will have been brought on through their network, instead of through their belief in the platform. Before you know it, perhaps most of their users won't care as much as the original set!
  - dublo7 8y ago
    What we need is a law that forces companies to get specific permission before seeing their data to any other specific entity. Terms of use change all the time. I'm hopeful the new generation of people growing up without privacy will learn to value it as they mature and control of their internet history is something they have to deal with. Make laws with teeth. Look at HIPAA for example. The penalties are severe and therefore compliance is strict.
  - zwaps 8y ago
    No. Google got big literally only because a huge f-ton of nerds saw them as a new, unique, good alternative to the big tech companies and pushed their services. Remember when working at Google was a dream that spawned several movies even? Then, Google just went and deleted "Don't be evil" from their manifesto. Literally they did that. That's like saying "Yo guys, we are evil now". And what happened? Nothing. They are fine.
- ChrisClark 8y ago
  I don't replacing Facebook with another centralized network is a step forward at all. You should own your own data, and choose to share it with one or more networks. Should be able to be friends with people on BookFace, YourSpace, ICQQ, and choose what you want to share with them. Everyone browsing their feed in the app of their choice.
beat 8y ago
"Can't". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Of course they can, both technically and legally. Ethical sketchiness has never been a consideration for giant corporations before, why should it be now? You are not Facebook's customer. You are their product. You have no expectation of privacy for anything you post to Facebook, whether or not it's "private".
- drdeca 8y ago
  "Can't" there was presumably meant as an ethical or moral statement, or as an imperative, not as a description of possibility. In the same way that "must" can either mean that something is inevitable, or mean that it is imperative.
  - beat 8y ago
    I'll freely admit I'm loud about it because people saying "can't" to mean "won't" or "shouldn't" is a pet peeve of mine. It's misusing language to elevate personal decisions to logical imperatives ("I'm sorry, I can't come to your party"), or moral grey areas to moral black and white ("Facebook can't sell your data to other corporations!"). It's misleading and it shouldn't be used that way. Can't be used that way, even...
    - AndrewSChapman 8y ago
      Meh, using shouldn't wouldn't have the same rhetorical impact. It's similar to the phrase "Can't complain.". Sure you could say "Shouldn't complain".. but it doesn't work.
- berdon 8y ago
  I'm not sure why this post is getting down-voted aside from people not liking what it says (perhaps how it says it?). Nothing it stated was factually inaccurate or unjustified. You really aren't Facebook's customer - no money is exchanged for services rendered.
  - 8y ago
tzfld 8y ago
Do you think the solution is to move to another service who may or may not abuse by his position in the future?
- arethuza 8y ago
  The only solution is probably a move to open standard for social networking with multiple implementations and multiple instances of each implementation.
  - m-i-l 8y ago
    Don't want to sound defeatist because I do think it is a good idea, but: The great thing about distributed social networking standards is that there are so many different ones to choose from[0]. We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use case[1]. Even then there would be a risk that one dominant player would emerge and embrace, extend and extinguish the open standards[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_pro... [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
    - arethuza 8y ago
      I'm old enough to remember pre-Web hypertext systems and pre-SMTP email systems - so I live in hope....
eloisant 8y ago
The Facebook brand is tainted, but they can still pull an "Alphabet" and rename the company to protect Instagram, Whatsapp, Occulus, and still have a very successful company. They can even launch a new social network, pretend it's different and make it easy to switch from Facebook...
pmlnr 8y ago
> I hope people continue migrating to http://MeWe.com http://MeWe.com LOL, no. From company to another company, because this time, it will be different! (Hey there, https://ello.co https://ello.co ! ) Get your own thing. WordPess with webmentions, Mastodon, Gnusocial, SSBC, anything, but it really, really shouldn't be a single unit controlled thing.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  > really shouldn't be a single unit controlled thing. Right on - all we need is a suite of standard protocols and data format for information exchange between social networks.
ahartmetz 8y ago
"Facebook is built on the belief that people don't need privacy" That is wrong, Facebook's leadership doesn't act that way. Facebook is built on "fuck them, we'll take away their privacy and make money".
- ElijahLynn 8y ago
  To add on, FB was built on this core attitude, I can only think how it spread to this day: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes
laurex 8y ago
In all the talk of where people will go from Facebook, it's interesting that the proposed solution is a similar model of feeds and superficial connection. It's possible that we may be starting to realize the way this method of "connection" simply doesn't serve us from a well-being standpoint, versus using technology to better enable us to have actual closeness and friendships.

arethuza 8y ago

"zero ads" So how do they make money? Edit: They are doing the freemium model - its in their FAQ https://mewe.com/faq https://mewe.com/faq

vanattab 8y ago

Ahh yes the very traditional method of charging for extended emotions... Better then facebook I suppose.

dominotw 8y ago

> I hope people continue migrating to http://MeWe.com http://MeWe.com which has a clear privacy bill of rights at its core and zero ads. It makes money in a far more traditional approach by charging for "pages" and extended emotions etc. What is the guarantee that they stick to this and not got FB route later. Why should I trust "Sgrouples Inc."?

AndrewSChapman 8y ago
If they changed it would be suicide. Their whole raison d'être is around privacy and no censorship.
- fortylove 8y ago
  I'm not so sure that'll still be true once they have a critical mass of users on there. Perhaps a lot of users will have been brought on through their network, instead of through their belief in the platform. Before you know it, perhaps most of their users won't care as much as the original set!
- dublo7 8y ago
  What we need is a law that forces companies to get specific permission before seeing their data to any other specific entity. Terms of use change all the time. I'm hopeful the new generation of people growing up without privacy will learn to value it as they mature and control of their internet history is something they have to deal with. Make laws with teeth. Look at HIPAA for example. The penalties are severe and therefore compliance is strict.
- zwaps 8y ago
  No. Google got big literally only because a huge f-ton of nerds saw them as a new, unique, good alternative to the big tech companies and pushed their services. Remember when working at Google was a dream that spawned several movies even? Then, Google just went and deleted "Don't be evil" from their manifesto. Literally they did that. That's like saying "Yo guys, we are evil now". And what happened? Nothing. They are fine.
ChrisClark 8y ago
I don't replacing Facebook with another centralized network is a step forward at all. You should own your own data, and choose to share it with one or more networks. Should be able to be friends with people on BookFace, YourSpace, ICQQ, and choose what you want to share with them. Everyone browsing their feed in the app of their choice.

beat 8y ago

"Can't". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Of course they can, both technically and legally. Ethical sketchiness has never been a consideration for giant corporations before, why should it be now? You are not Facebook's customer. You are their product. You have no expectation of privacy for anything you post to Facebook, whether or not it's "private".

drdeca 8y ago
"Can't" there was presumably meant as an ethical or moral statement, or as an imperative, not as a description of possibility. In the same way that "must" can either mean that something is inevitable, or mean that it is imperative.
- beat 8y ago
  I'll freely admit I'm loud about it because people saying "can't" to mean "won't" or "shouldn't" is a pet peeve of mine. It's misusing language to elevate personal decisions to logical imperatives ("I'm sorry, I can't come to your party"), or moral grey areas to moral black and white ("Facebook can't sell your data to other corporations!"). It's misleading and it shouldn't be used that way. Can't be used that way, even...
  - AndrewSChapman 8y ago
    Meh, using shouldn't wouldn't have the same rhetorical impact. It's similar to the phrase "Can't complain.". Sure you could say "Shouldn't complain".. but it doesn't work.
berdon 8y ago
I'm not sure why this post is getting down-voted aside from people not liking what it says (perhaps how it says it?). Nothing it stated was factually inaccurate or unjustified. You really aren't Facebook's customer - no money is exchanged for services rendered.
- 8y ago

tzfld 8y ago

Do you think the solution is to move to another service who may or may not abuse by his position in the future?

arethuza 8y ago
The only solution is probably a move to open standard for social networking with multiple implementations and multiple instances of each implementation.
- m-i-l 8y ago
  Don't want to sound defeatist because I do think it is a good idea, but: The great thing about distributed social networking standards is that there are so many different ones to choose from[0]. We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use case[1]. Even then there would be a risk that one dominant player would emerge and embrace, extend and extinguish the open standards[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_pro... [1] https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
  - arethuza 8y ago
    I'm old enough to remember pre-Web hypertext systems and pre-SMTP email systems - so I live in hope....

eloisant 8y ago

The Facebook brand is tainted, but they can still pull an "Alphabet" and rename the company to protect Instagram, Whatsapp, Occulus, and still have a very successful company. They can even launch a new social network, pretend it's different and make it easy to switch from Facebook...

pmlnr 8y ago

> I hope people continue migrating to http://MeWe.com http://MeWe.com LOL, no. From company to another company, because this time, it will be different! (Hey there, https://ello.co https://ello.co ! ) Get your own thing. WordPess with webmentions, Mastodon, Gnusocial, SSBC, anything, but it really, really shouldn't be a single unit controlled thing.

mr_overalls 8y ago
> really shouldn't be a single unit controlled thing. Right on - all we need is a suite of standard protocols and data format for information exchange between social networks.

ahartmetz 8y ago

"Facebook is built on the belief that people don't need privacy" That is wrong, Facebook's leadership doesn't act that way. Facebook is built on "fuck them, we'll take away their privacy and make money".

ElijahLynn 8y ago
To add on, FB was built on this core attitude, I can only think how it spread to this day: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes

laurex 8y ago

In all the talk of where people will go from Facebook, it's interesting that the proposed solution is a similar model of feeds and superficial connection. It's possible that we may be starting to realize the way this method of "connection" simply doesn't serve us from a well-being standpoint, versus using technology to better enable us to have actual closeness and friendships.