4 ms·

"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 consider

by 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.
- FakeComments 8y ago
  I’m guessing because the expectation of privacy thing isn’t nearly as settled as the GP makes it out to be, and depends partly on how the public views such interactions — but the entire rant is deeply based on that point, which it aggressively and baldly asserts. In short, because it doesn’t have much substance and may actually be counter-productive.
  - beat 8y ago
    The "expectation of privacy" really is quite settled. It's about marketing, not reality. Thinking FB will treat your "private data" as yours rather than theirs is about as realistic as watching a beer commercial and thinking that if you drink that brand of beer, beautiful women will find you more attractive. It's about as "isn't nearly as settled" as the question of whether Santa Claus is real. Just because there's a guy in a red suit at the mall and you got presents every year doesn't mean there's an actual jolly elf flying around in his sleigh handing the best presents to the richest kids. So yes, there's an illusion of "privacy". Your private data is private from your peers, who are just as much a product as you are. But it is never going to be private from Facebook's actual customers. Market forces are relentless and amoral. This doesn't mean they're immoral, that they're evil. It just means they will not make an effort to be good, either. Facebook doesn't exist to facilitate communication and share cat videos. It facilitates communication in order to serve its actual purpose, which is to collect large amounts of valuable personal data from as many individuals as possible, in order to sell that data to companies that want to sell products to targeted individuals.
    - FakeComments 8y ago
      I find it interesting that rather than present a link, or even an argument grounded in, eg, law, you simply asserted that it’s settled and that FB is intrinsically amoral, and we all just need to accept that. The whole purpose of government is to regulate amoral market forces to conform to our moral philosophy.
      - beat 8y ago

by beat 8y ago

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.

FakeComments 8y ago
I’m guessing because the expectation of privacy thing isn’t nearly as settled as the GP makes it out to be, and depends partly on how the public views such interactions — but the entire rant is deeply based on that point, which it aggressively and baldly asserts. In short, because it doesn’t have much substance and may actually be counter-productive.
- beat 8y ago
  The "expectation of privacy" really is quite settled. It's about marketing, not reality. Thinking FB will treat your "private data" as yours rather than theirs is about as realistic as watching a beer commercial and thinking that if you drink that brand of beer, beautiful women will find you more attractive. It's about as "isn't nearly as settled" as the question of whether Santa Claus is real. Just because there's a guy in a red suit at the mall and you got presents every year doesn't mean there's an actual jolly elf flying around in his sleigh handing the best presents to the richest kids. So yes, there's an illusion of "privacy". Your private data is private from your peers, who are just as much a product as you are. But it is never going to be private from Facebook's actual customers. Market forces are relentless and amoral. This doesn't mean they're immoral, that they're evil. It just means they will not make an effort to be good, either. Facebook doesn't exist to facilitate communication and share cat videos. It facilitates communication in order to serve its actual purpose, which is to collect large amounts of valuable personal data from as many individuals as possible, in order to sell that data to companies that want to sell products to targeted individuals.
  - FakeComments 8y ago
    I find it interesting that rather than present a link, or even an argument grounded in, eg, law, you simply asserted that it’s settled and that FB is intrinsically amoral, and we all just need to accept that. The whole purpose of government is to regulate amoral market forces to conform to our moral philosophy.
    - beat 8y ago