3 ms·

This title is rather click-baity, and so is the term "surveillance capitalism." There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and

by sjroot 8y ago

This title is rather click-baity, and so is the term "surveillance capitalism." There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. However, people continue to embrace "big tech" because it is convenient. Whether you want to admit it or not, these companies do plenty of good for people around the world. I think the momentum of deleting our presence on these sites will continue to increase, but I also believe that it should be allowed to happen organically. Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society. Edit: Since I'm being down-voted, I should clarify that I definitely support some level of intervention. I would prefer that to take the form of educating people on the importance of preserving their privacy.

CodeMage 8y ago
> There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk
- NetOpWibby 8y ago
  What’s the TL;DW?
  - CodeMage 8y ago
    If I had to pick TL;DW relevant to this topic, it's that the choice of platform is aggregate, not individual. If the vast majority of people stop communicating or interacting in one way and start doing it in another, it's not really a feasible choice to opt out anymore. This is my own very clumsy summary. I strongly recommend watching the video, because Moxie is much better at explaining this than I am.
- lapnitnelav 8y ago
  Such a great presentation that clearly highlights what's at stake in a way that's accessible to everyone and not just tech folks.
_tulpa 8y ago
I don’t know how you expect that happen ‘organically’ when nearly nobody outside most of our little bubbles don’t even know that this is a problem. Regulation is pretty much the only way to really stop user data misuse, with the minor problem that the regulators don’t know what they’re doing (or don’t care).
- sjroot 8y ago
  > I don’t know how you expect that happen ‘organically’ when nearly nobody outside most of our little bubbles don’t even know that this is a problem. Regulation is pretty much the only way to really stop user data misuse, with the minor problem that the regulators don’t know what they’re doing (or don’t care). Any regulators that impose sactions on Facebook are only doing so on behalf of those they really work for (corporate interests jealous of Facebook's success, most likely). When I say organically, I mean this way! Keep having the discussion with as many people as possible. Delete your social media profiles and tell your friends and family why. Voice your concerns in person, print, and online.
  - _tulpa 8y ago
    So then we focus on fixing corrupt and/or useless regulators, which as a nice bonus of fixing a bunch of other issues too. Deleting accounts and telling people why just disconnects you from those people that still use those services (speaking from experience). It doesn’t matter what you tell them. Even if they understand the situation nobody can connect the issue to any tangible negative effects on their individual lives, and nobody else is deleting their accounts (despite what the online echo chambers might lead you to believe). My grandma is not gonna stop using facebook and go to the trouble of email. My sister’s not gonna stop using instagram no matter what I or anyone else tells her. My colleagues are not gonna stop using GMail because it’s a pain to switch addresses and there aren’t any really clear alternatives. And how many people even have someone in their social circle who will even talk about this? And that’s before you consider the huge chunk of Facebooks user base which lives in third world countries where the only affordable way to get online is via cheap/free data plans which are heavily subsidised by facebook. Pushing this problem onto consumers/users to find an ‘organic solution’ is dead in the water before you even start. You’re asking people to give up something which is super convenient and has no immediate tangible cost or negative effect on them personally. The organic solution is what is currently happening, and ignoring how badly this strategy fails is just going to make it worse.
1000units 8y ago
Google runs my email and cell phone.
- sjroot 8y ago
  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
  - 1000units 8y ago
    I'm not incredibly happy about it.
MarsAscendant 8y ago
> Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society. I find that you can't make people adopt better habits and views on things (nevermind the fact that "better" is in the eye of the beholder). The best thing you can do is educate the person looking to be educated, because they'd be not only the ones looking for ways to improve, but also the ones far more open to new information. Otherwise, people remain stubborn, sometimes counteroffensively so. That impulse – to be willing to learn of better ways to handle the world – gotta start somewhere. I reckon schools ought to have some sort of modern technology education, swift and fleeting as it currently is. Not learning the apps in itself, but navigating the nature of the Internet as a cultural phenomenon, in the way that people use it. One thing they better learn early is that sharing personal information online might be harmful, and the effects may last well into their adulthood, whether they realize it or not. That it's not all bad, but they may want to remain careful about what, where, and when they share — not just for themselves, but for others, as well.
renholder 8y ago
>There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. Someone didn't see the video[0] where the Facebook SDK, packaged into other apps, was sending all of the information plausible/possible back to Facebook - before the Terms and Conditions of the application could even be accepted. The problem is far greater than you've perceived it to be. [0] - https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_android/ https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...
- sjroot 8y ago
  Any developer that uses the Facebook SDK has to agree to its terms and conditions. If you have an issue with this then you should avoid using applications that use the Facebook SDK. How is it a problem with Facebook when they have released this software free of charge for any developer to use? Again, just like the Facebook website, it is a product that they offer.
  - renholder 8y ago
    Developer does not equal consumer. Just because the developer agrees to the terms and conditions of Facebook's SDK, it doesn't give Facebook carte blanche on the end-user's device - before the end-user has even agreed to the app's Terms & Conditions. Also, how in the feck do you propose avoiding using apps with the Facebook SDK included? It's not as if such use is advertised by the apps, yeah? From your argument, it's free, so why the feck should anyone complain? That's pretty banal: Trading subversive data practices for the cost of it being "free" should never have been an acceptable position for anyone to take, in the first place - no matter who it is.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
I don’t deny that these companies do some good, but we should look at the totality of their output, not focus on the few good things they do. I am having a hard time objectively saying these companies are a net good for society. The existence of other communication mediums does not absolve Facebook and others of their role in consolidating the major communication mediums into their portfolio. A bunch of (mostly) white, male millennial Americans should not be controlling the worlds communication. And I say this as a millennial. I don’t quite understand why people’s concern over Facebook centralizing and controlling communication for the entire world (and censoring it) is somehow hysteria or an overreaction.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I would say they are a net good unquestionably, in fact, I have a hard time seeing what exactly the net "bad" should be based on. Like everything in this world, everything has to be done in balance. Some people can't deal with alcohol and become alcoholics, some people can't deal with gambling and become ludomanics etc. but most people have perfectly fine and balanced relationships. People can choose not to use these mediums and they do so. Every kind of progress goes through a phase of maturation where we learn about the positive and negative sides and adjust over time to it. Social media is a reflection of humans and it will always amplify the negative sides as well as (luckily) the positive sides.
- sjroot 8y ago
  > I don’t deny that these companies do some good, but we should look at the totality of their output, not focus on the few good things they do. I am having a hard time objectively saying these companies are a net good for society. What about their efforts to diversify their (very well-paid) workforce? Helping connect families and friends living across the world, particularly during natural disasters or other emergencies? All of the research they have done and shared with the world at top conferences? > The existence of other communication mediums does not absolve Facebook and others of their role in consolidating the major communication mediums into their portfolio. A bunch of (mostly) white, male millennial Americans should not be controlling the worlds communication. And I say this as a millennial. Is it any different from any other major media organization that exists today? > I don’t quite understand why people’s concern over Facebook centralizing and controlling communication for the entire world (and censoring it) is somehow hysteria or an overreaction. I definitely think people should be concerned. I think that we should make an effort to make more people concerned. I just think that having the government impose restrictions on Facebook (because too many people enjoy the benefits I described above) might not be the best approach to this problem.

by sjroot 8y ago

CodeMage 8y ago

> There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. I suggest watching Moxie Marlinspike's keynote for Defcon 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk

NetOpWibby 8y ago
What’s the TL;DW?
- CodeMage 8y ago
  If I had to pick TL;DW relevant to this topic, it's that the choice of platform is aggregate, not individual. If the vast majority of people stop communicating or interacting in one way and start doing it in another, it's not really a feasible choice to opt out anymore. This is my own very clumsy summary. I strongly recommend watching the video, because Moxie is much better at explaining this than I am.
lapnitnelav 8y ago
Such a great presentation that clearly highlights what's at stake in a way that's accessible to everyone and not just tech folks.

_tulpa 8y ago

I don’t know how you expect that happen ‘organically’ when nearly nobody outside most of our little bubbles don’t even know that this is a problem. Regulation is pretty much the only way to really stop user data misuse, with the minor problem that the regulators don’t know what they’re doing (or don’t care).

sjroot 8y ago
> I don’t know how you expect that happen ‘organically’ when nearly nobody outside most of our little bubbles don’t even know that this is a problem. Regulation is pretty much the only way to really stop user data misuse, with the minor problem that the regulators don’t know what they’re doing (or don’t care). Any regulators that impose sactions on Facebook are only doing so on behalf of those they really work for (corporate interests jealous of Facebook's success, most likely). When I say organically, I mean this way! Keep having the discussion with as many people as possible. Delete your social media profiles and tell your friends and family why. Voice your concerns in person, print, and online.
- _tulpa 8y ago
  So then we focus on fixing corrupt and/or useless regulators, which as a nice bonus of fixing a bunch of other issues too. Deleting accounts and telling people why just disconnects you from those people that still use those services (speaking from experience). It doesn’t matter what you tell them. Even if they understand the situation nobody can connect the issue to any tangible negative effects on their individual lives, and nobody else is deleting their accounts (despite what the online echo chambers might lead you to believe). My grandma is not gonna stop using facebook and go to the trouble of email. My sister’s not gonna stop using instagram no matter what I or anyone else tells her. My colleagues are not gonna stop using GMail because it’s a pain to switch addresses and there aren’t any really clear alternatives. And how many people even have someone in their social circle who will even talk about this? And that’s before you consider the huge chunk of Facebooks user base which lives in third world countries where the only affordable way to get online is via cheap/free data plans which are heavily subsidised by facebook. Pushing this problem onto consumers/users to find an ‘organic solution’ is dead in the water before you even start. You’re asking people to give up something which is super convenient and has no immediate tangible cost or negative effect on them personally. The organic solution is what is currently happening, and ignoring how badly this strategy fails is just going to make it worse.

1000units 8y ago

Google runs my email and cell phone.

sjroot 8y ago
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
- 1000units 8y ago
  I'm not incredibly happy about it.

MarsAscendant 8y ago

> Regulating this space without allowing people to realize its harmful effects and make the decision for themselves will only further polarize our society. I find that you can't make people adopt better habits and views on things (nevermind the fact that "better" is in the eye of the beholder). The best thing you can do is educate the person looking to be educated, because they'd be not only the ones looking for ways to improve, but also the ones far more open to new information. Otherwise, people remain stubborn, sometimes counteroffensively so. That impulse – to be willing to learn of better ways to handle the world – gotta start somewhere. I reckon schools ought to have some sort of modern technology education, swift and fleeting as it currently is. Not learning the apps in itself, but navigating the nature of the Internet as a cultural phenomenon, in the way that people use it. One thing they better learn early is that sharing personal information online might be harmful, and the effects may last well into their adulthood, whether they realize it or not. That it's not all bad, but they may want to remain careful about what, where, and when they share — not just for themselves, but for others, as well.

renholder 8y ago

>There are plenty of alternatives to social media - email, SMS, phone calls, and even decentralized options. Someone didn't see the video[0] where the Facebook SDK, packaged into other apps, was sending all of the information plausible/possible back to Facebook - before the Terms and Conditions of the application could even be accepted. The problem is far greater than you've perceived it to be. [0] - https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_android/ https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...

sjroot 8y ago
Any developer that uses the Facebook SDK has to agree to its terms and conditions. If you have an issue with this then you should avoid using applications that use the Facebook SDK. How is it a problem with Facebook when they have released this software free of charge for any developer to use? Again, just like the Facebook website, it is a product that they offer.
- renholder 8y ago
  Developer does not equal consumer. Just because the developer agrees to the terms and conditions of Facebook's SDK, it doesn't give Facebook carte blanche on the end-user's device - before the end-user has even agreed to the app's Terms & Conditions. Also, how in the feck do you propose avoiding using apps with the Facebook SDK included? It's not as if such use is advertised by the apps, yeah? From your argument, it's free, so why the feck should anyone complain? That's pretty banal: Trading subversive data practices for the cost of it being "free" should never have been an acceptable position for anyone to take, in the first place - no matter who it is.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

I don’t deny that these companies do some good, but we should look at the totality of their output, not focus on the few good things they do. I am having a hard time objectively saying these companies are a net good for society. The existence of other communication mediums does not absolve Facebook and others of their role in consolidating the major communication mediums into their portfolio. A bunch of (mostly) white, male millennial Americans should not be controlling the worlds communication. And I say this as a millennial. I don’t quite understand why people’s concern over Facebook centralizing and controlling communication for the entire world (and censoring it) is somehow hysteria or an overreaction.

ThomPete 8y ago
I would say they are a net good unquestionably, in fact, I have a hard time seeing what exactly the net "bad" should be based on. Like everything in this world, everything has to be done in balance. Some people can't deal with alcohol and become alcoholics, some people can't deal with gambling and become ludomanics etc. but most people have perfectly fine and balanced relationships. People can choose not to use these mediums and they do so. Every kind of progress goes through a phase of maturation where we learn about the positive and negative sides and adjust over time to it. Social media is a reflection of humans and it will always amplify the negative sides as well as (luckily) the positive sides.
sjroot 8y ago
> I don’t deny that these companies do some good, but we should look at the totality of their output, not focus on the few good things they do. I am having a hard time objectively saying these companies are a net good for society. What about their efforts to diversify their (very well-paid) workforce? Helping connect families and friends living across the world, particularly during natural disasters or other emergencies? All of the research they have done and shared with the world at top conferences? > The existence of other communication mediums does not absolve Facebook and others of their role in consolidating the major communication mediums into their portfolio. A bunch of (mostly) white, male millennial Americans should not be controlling the worlds communication. And I say this as a millennial. Is it any different from any other major media organization that exists today? > I don’t quite understand why people’s concern over Facebook centralizing and controlling communication for the entire world (and censoring it) is somehow hysteria or an overreaction. I definitely think people should be concerned. I think that we should make an effort to make more people concerned. I just think that having the government impose restrictions on Facebook (because too many people enjoy the benefits I described above) might not be the best approach to this problem.