124 ms·

Facebook: The Normalization of What Should Never Have Been Accepted as Normal

190 points by theBashShell 8y ago

FiveSquared 8y ago
Listen, FaceBook monetizes social interaction. It is completely normal and good to socialize, but Facebook is like someon read your mail and sold it. Oh wait, that’s GMail. My point is that they montitize and manipulate and obfuscate the real truth of their platforms.
- jyrkesh 8y ago
  Except that FB now has a consistent track record of leaking those "mails" (or friend lists, or interactions, or whatever) to 3rd party entities that I've never authorized to have that data. Gmail on the other hand has one of the best security track records in the industry, minus state-sponsored snooping (but that's a bit of a different issue, I think). There's zero instance of my Gmail mails being used by Google in anything other than algorithmic ad targeting.
  - est31 8y ago
    Even algorithmic ad targeting can be dangerous. If you are writing love letters to your secret gay lover then that should be between you two and you shouldn't get gay ads during other browsing activity, which might be in presence of others like your employer or family.
    - joering2 8y ago
      Exgoogler here: they have list of sensitive do-not-cross-ad categories that will not show up on your other devices or networks you are or been part of. Example: google “buy lawnmover” on your cellphone. Most likely other participants of the same LAN will sooner or later experience ads for lawnmovers. Now, google “Best online dating apps” or “im HIV positive how to protect my environment”, noone else than your own device, in limited scope, will see a followup-ads.
      - est31 8y ago
        That's very cool. Great to have this!
      - SiempreViernes 8y ago
        How did this somewhat laudable practice emerge? Was there some internal ethics review that created this solution?
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Is there a public list of what Google does and doesn't consider sensitive? Or is that - just guessing here - considered too sensitive to share with the public?
        est31 8y ago
        That's a good point. The presence of the list is only beneficial when people don't know it exists: then everyone acts as if they wouldn't know it existed, so all its doing is preventing those sensitive details to be leaked. However, if you know that the list exists, but you don't know what's on it, you might trust it too quickly... and might only find out that something is NOt on the list if it's too late. So then the existence of the list also contributes towards exposure of private details in some instances, while preventing exposure in many others.
      - creato 8y ago
        > Example: google “buy lawnmover” on your cellphone. Most likely other participants of the same LAN will sooner or later experience ads for lawnmovers. I've spent my whole life sharing a wifi network with housemates, family, etc. and I've never once noticed this.
      - dralley 8y ago
        Facebook definitely does not. I got an ad to join a Facebook group for bisexuals despite not having any information on my profile or in my post history to that effect.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  Just that Facebook doesn’t use the content of messages to inform ads or ranking! Gmail does btw
  - yoavm 8y ago
    Gmail doens't do that anymore. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620608
    - sixothree 8y ago
      That sounds oddly specific that it is only for "gmail ads".
cs702 8y ago
A simple test for figuring out which of Facebook's arguments are sensible is to substitute "Facebook" for a different entity such as, say, a neighborhood association, the phone company, or a government agency. For example, take the subtitle of Zuckerberg's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising." Substituting: * Would you be OK with your neighborhood association installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?" * Would you be OK with the phone company installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?" * Would you be OK with a government agency installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  This exercise shows the ridiculous amount of power people have seceded to companies like Facebook over their personal lives, and how little awareness of it exists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kodablah 8y ago
    It's not as much of an awareness issue as it is an apathy one. You can't make people care no matter how many of these crap articles are written. People need to just recognize people have different cost/benefit values concerning their data, the companies they give it to, and the services they receive. And that's ok, their opinion is no more wrong than anyone else's.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      My problem is that activists and certain politicians want to make these decisions for me. GDPR already has done so to my detriment and the detriment of the online EU sector.
buboard 8y ago
what an accurate, non-clickbaity and non-karmawhoring submission
ACow_Adonis 8y ago
For context, I have a stub facebook account with practically no activity, mainly just to show people in our society i exist. I don't like social media and i think the whole phenomenon is a net negative for humanity. Professionally, people might call me a data analyst or a data scientist, but to the layperson in terms of describing 'what I actually do for money', I think its basically 'imagine sherlock holmes grew up being able to program'. There's an element of those 'what I think i do' memes in that statement, but I think there's an important philosophical concept I've been dealing with lurking under all that and I'm not sure how our society is going to deal with it. Excluding those instances of 'actual spyware', people just ooze and leak information perpetually throughout the day. This information is being put out there whether they are aware of it or not, but its primarily the reciever's sensitivity, infrastructure and use of that information that determines whether its: a) perceived as information at all b) is captured c) is then used for some purpose of the capturing entity The character of sherlock holmes gets away with it because he's an anomaly, because people perceive him to be good and working against the 'bad guys', and honestly, because people just don't really think about the privacy and lifestyle implications of being in his presence. Now however, we're at this point where corporations have an ability to collect the information that exceeds the average person's ability to comprehend/process that information. Its not as good as sherlock, buts its above that of the average person. Part of that is just because our educational systems do such a piss-poor job of getting people to interpret or analyse information, but part of it is just the natural evolution of systems and infrastructure now being able to capture, process and use the information being output into the world that's always has and always will be there. A power company doesn't need to install any spyware: you just need to look at the patterns in your power consumption to determine what a person is doing at what times. A phone company doesn't need to install any spyware: they need your hardware details, your physical location, metadata to serve you websites, metadata to provide you calls, your billing details and identity. Your grocery doesn't need to install any spyware: they know the product mix in your trolley tells them everything they need to know, and if you pay with non-cash means or have a loyalty card, they also have sufficient identity and personal details as well. Your bank doesn't need to install any spyware: they know the merchants, time, place, amount, and identity details of your transactions. A government agency doesn't need to install spyware: you have a birth certificate, (will have) a death certificate, and you verify your identity each time you interact with them. If you think those companies aren't doing this already, congrats, you're living in ignorance. Facebook doesn't need to install spyware (whether they are or not is another question). People are participating in their ecosystem and on top of that, providing huge amounts of additional information out into the public stream in a systematic way that previously was not previously available and not previously being shared on such a scale. The existence of facebook and social media (the structure of the thing itself, as an instance of a particular phenomenon on a certain kind of telecommunications and tech infrastructure, rather than the individual instances of companies) leaks and necessitates this information being put out there to be used. Now, we can say to people 'i don't like that they're doing this with that information', but its important to separate that from the actual information being put out there, and from the fact that there are many individuals who can use and successfully interpret that information, whether they work for facebook or not. You can try to ban facebook from using that information (god knows what that would look like, i imagine it would be a horrible set of laws), but its like trying to ban sherlock from having thoughts and piecing together the mud on your shoe from the footprint in the lobby: only there's a lot more sherlocks running around out there now and people are voluntarily putting cameras into their own home and broadcasting it.
nokya 8y ago
Let's look at the bright side of this article: (almost) nobody cares.
imhelpingu 8y ago
I doubt I'm the only person in their 30's+ who can remember warning people that giving so much data to Facebook is a bad idea, and the response was just outright, sanctimonious screeching and accusations of unreasonable paranoia. I'm talking borderline religious zealotry from hipsters who consider themselves progressive and free-thinking.
- kerng 8y ago
  The tragedy is that even now some are arguing that this is all perfectly okay...
- godelski 8y ago
  I think people don't understand the power of that data. I think they also believe that organizations only have the data they explicitly give. I think this, because this is what others convey to me when I talk to them about data. People are realizing now the extent and power. I talk about why Facebook doesn't need to listen to your conversation to make those creepy ad suggestions. This is the best way I've found to explain it
  - tuesdayrain 8y ago
    Personally I don't find any kind of ads creepy. I would prefer highly relevant ads to spam.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      Sadly such an opinion as yours would be deemed, as the GP mentioned, as just not understanding. Those that willingly accept the tradeoff are often assumed to be ignorant and most don't voice their opinions online making the narrative appear one sided.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
> When all is said and done, advertising is also the basis for Google’s business model; with one fundamental difference: advertisers on Google choose their segmented targets based on many variables, but Google will never give them the identity, address or personal data of its users, which it zealously guards, applying far superior security to do so than most of its competitors. This article starts off well, but then it reveals its true colors.
bronzeage 8y ago
If you don't like Facebook don't use it, it's that simple. Social networks need a critical mass of people to run, even a naive user would stop using Facebook when most of his friends aren't there. Facebook isn't the first social network and it isn't the last. It gained the most momentum, sure, but it will eventually fall. The trend is already downward. Anything other than just moving on not using Facebook is half measure. If you're still using Facebook by now, either you are naive or misinformed.
- mdolon 8y ago
  I don’t think it’s that simple. For many, some of these social network products (ie Facebook or Instagram) have become deeply engrained in their lifestyle. Yes, they can still stop using them, but it is not that easy to because of the immediate consequences. If all of your friends and family use a product and have grown accustomed to communicating with you via that channel, it is difficult to offer alternatives — it’s completely feasible yes, but nevertheless still difficult. There is a psychological ball and chain effect that these networks create, which, in my mind, is one of the biggest dangers. That a corporation has enough leverage over your behavior to make leaving it’s product a psychologically or physically tough decision seems dangerous and wrong.
- marci 8y ago
  In some places, saying "If you don't like Facebook don't use it, it's that simple" is akin to "If you don't like Facebook don't use the Internet, it's that simple" https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-...
bronzeage 8y ago
I've heard so many creepy Facebook stories by now. I know a psychologist who is well aware of privacy, which created a pseudonym account only to avoid her patients, which had the whole thing blown in her face when she installed Facebook app which then immediately suggested those patients she tried to avoid just because she had their phone, and those patients could briefly see her as a suggestion too. Nothing could help at this point, it didn't even need her permission for the phone contacts, just her phone number was enough for Facebook because it had already gotten the contacts of her patients which contained her number. Just think about how ridiculous this is for a moment: anyone, including that shady taxi driver you ordered, or the plumber, or whatever, can suddenly get you as friend option in Facebook because you happened to call each other the other day and you're living in the same city. It gets super creepy really fast.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Similarly I visit mental health hospitals and facebook recommends patients of those hospitals to me as new friends. It's really fucking creepy.
- fingerlocks 8y ago
  > anyone, including that shady taxi driver you ordered Wouldn't you have to save the shady taxi driver's number to your contact list for this to work?
gregknicholson 8y ago
> I still believe social networks have a future, but that this future will have to be based on radically different business models, ones that do not see users as a commodity to be bought and sold, and that instead, respect them. I don't accept the assumption that a social network must have a business model, or that it must be a business.

190 points by theBashShell 8y ago

Listen, FaceBook monetizes social interaction. It is completely normal and good to socialize, but Facebook is like someon read your mail and sold it. Oh wait, that’s GMail. My point is that they montitize and manipulate and obfuscate the real truth of their platforms.

jyrkesh 8y ago
Except that FB now has a consistent track record of leaking those "mails" (or friend lists, or interactions, or whatever) to 3rd party entities that I've never authorized to have that data. Gmail on the other hand has one of the best security track records in the industry, minus state-sponsored snooping (but that's a bit of a different issue, I think). There's zero instance of my Gmail mails being used by Google in anything other than algorithmic ad targeting.
- est31 8y ago
  Even algorithmic ad targeting can be dangerous. If you are writing love letters to your secret gay lover then that should be between you two and you shouldn't get gay ads during other browsing activity, which might be in presence of others like your employer or family.
  - joering2 8y ago
    Exgoogler here: they have list of sensitive do-not-cross-ad categories that will not show up on your other devices or networks you are or been part of. Example: google “buy lawnmover” on your cellphone. Most likely other participants of the same LAN will sooner or later experience ads for lawnmovers. Now, google “Best online dating apps” or “im HIV positive how to protect my environment”, noone else than your own device, in limited scope, will see a followup-ads.
    - est31 8y ago
      That's very cool. Great to have this!
    - SiempreViernes 8y ago
      How did this somewhat laudable practice emerge? Was there some internal ethics review that created this solution?
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Is there a public list of what Google does and doesn't consider sensitive? Or is that - just guessing here - considered too sensitive to share with the public?
      - est31 8y ago
        That's a good point. The presence of the list is only beneficial when people don't know it exists: then everyone acts as if they wouldn't know it existed, so all its doing is preventing those sensitive details to be leaked. However, if you know that the list exists, but you don't know what's on it, you might trust it too quickly... and might only find out that something is NOt on the list if it's too late. So then the existence of the list also contributes towards exposure of private details in some instances, while preventing exposure in many others.
    - creato 8y ago
      > Example: google “buy lawnmover” on your cellphone. Most likely other participants of the same LAN will sooner or later experience ads for lawnmovers. I've spent my whole life sharing a wifi network with housemates, family, etc. and I've never once noticed this.
    - dralley 8y ago
      Facebook definitely does not. I got an ad to join a Facebook group for bisexuals despite not having any information on my profile or in my post history to that effect.
rock_hard 8y ago
Just that Facebook doesn’t use the content of messages to inform ads or ranking! Gmail does btw
- yoavm 8y ago
  Gmail doens't do that anymore. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620608
  - sixothree 8y ago
    That sounds oddly specific that it is only for "gmail ads".

cs702 8y ago

A simple test for figuring out which of Facebook's arguments are sensible is to substitute "Facebook" for a different entity such as, say, a neighborhood association, the phone company, or a government agency. For example, take the subtitle of Zuckerberg's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising." Substituting: * Would you be OK with your neighborhood association installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?" * Would you be OK with the phone company installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?" * Would you be OK with a government agency installing spyware on your cellphone because they "need your information for operation and security, but you control whether they use it for advertising?"

throwaway2048 8y ago
This exercise shows the ridiculous amount of power people have seceded to companies like Facebook over their personal lives, and how little awareness of it exists.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kodablah 8y ago
  It's not as much of an awareness issue as it is an apathy one. You can't make people care no matter how many of these crap articles are written. People need to just recognize people have different cost/benefit values concerning their data, the companies they give it to, and the services they receive. And that's ok, their opinion is no more wrong than anyone else's.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    My problem is that activists and certain politicians want to make these decisions for me. GDPR already has done so to my detriment and the detriment of the online EU sector.

buboard 8y ago

what an accurate, non-clickbaity and non-karmawhoring submission

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

For context, I have a stub facebook account with practically no activity, mainly just to show people in our society i exist. I don't like social media and i think the whole phenomenon is a net negative for humanity. Professionally, people might call me a data analyst or a data scientist, but to the layperson in terms of describing 'what I actually do for money', I think its basically 'imagine sherlock holmes grew up being able to program'. There's an element of those 'what I think i do' memes in that statement, but I think there's an important philosophical concept I've been dealing with lurking under all that and I'm not sure how our society is going to deal with it. Excluding those instances of 'actual spyware', people just ooze and leak information perpetually throughout the day. This information is being put out there whether they are aware of it or not, but its primarily the reciever's sensitivity, infrastructure and use of that information that determines whether its: a) perceived as information at all b) is captured c) is then used for some purpose of the capturing entity The character of sherlock holmes gets away with it because he's an anomaly, because people perceive him to be good and working against the 'bad guys', and honestly, because people just don't really think about the privacy and lifestyle implications of being in his presence. Now however, we're at this point where corporations have an ability to collect the information that exceeds the average person's ability to comprehend/process that information. Its not as good as sherlock, buts its above that of the average person. Part of that is just because our educational systems do such a piss-poor job of getting people to interpret or analyse information, but part of it is just the natural evolution of systems and infrastructure now being able to capture, process and use the information being output into the world that's always has and always will be there. A power company doesn't need to install any spyware: you just need to look at the patterns in your power consumption to determine what a person is doing at what times. A phone company doesn't need to install any spyware: they need your hardware details, your physical location, metadata to serve you websites, metadata to provide you calls, your billing details and identity. Your grocery doesn't need to install any spyware: they know the product mix in your trolley tells them everything they need to know, and if you pay with non-cash means or have a loyalty card, they also have sufficient identity and personal details as well. Your bank doesn't need to install any spyware: they know the merchants, time, place, amount, and identity details of your transactions. A government agency doesn't need to install spyware: you have a birth certificate, (will have) a death certificate, and you verify your identity each time you interact with them. If you think those companies aren't doing this already, congrats, you're living in ignorance. Facebook doesn't need to install spyware (whether they are or not is another question). People are participating in their ecosystem and on top of that, providing huge amounts of additional information out into the public stream in a systematic way that previously was not previously available and not previously being shared on such a scale. The existence of facebook and social media (the structure of the thing itself, as an instance of a particular phenomenon on a certain kind of telecommunications and tech infrastructure, rather than the individual instances of companies) leaks and necessitates this information being put out there to be used. Now, we can say to people 'i don't like that they're doing this with that information', but its important to separate that from the actual information being put out there, and from the fact that there are many individuals who can use and successfully interpret that information, whether they work for facebook or not. You can try to ban facebook from using that information (god knows what that would look like, i imagine it would be a horrible set of laws), but its like trying to ban sherlock from having thoughts and piecing together the mud on your shoe from the footprint in the lobby: only there's a lot more sherlocks running around out there now and people are voluntarily putting cameras into their own home and broadcasting it.

nokya 8y ago

Let's look at the bright side of this article: (almost) nobody cares.

imhelpingu 8y ago

I doubt I'm the only person in their 30's+ who can remember warning people that giving so much data to Facebook is a bad idea, and the response was just outright, sanctimonious screeching and accusations of unreasonable paranoia. I'm talking borderline religious zealotry from hipsters who consider themselves progressive and free-thinking.

kerng 8y ago
The tragedy is that even now some are arguing that this is all perfectly okay...
godelski 8y ago
I think people don't understand the power of that data. I think they also believe that organizations only have the data they explicitly give. I think this, because this is what others convey to me when I talk to them about data. People are realizing now the extent and power. I talk about why Facebook doesn't need to listen to your conversation to make those creepy ad suggestions. This is the best way I've found to explain it
- tuesdayrain 8y ago
  Personally I don't find any kind of ads creepy. I would prefer highly relevant ads to spam.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Sadly such an opinion as yours would be deemed, as the GP mentioned, as just not understanding. Those that willingly accept the tradeoff are often assumed to be ignorant and most don't voice their opinions online making the narrative appear one sided.

JetSpiegel 8y ago

> When all is said and done, advertising is also the basis for Google’s business model; with one fundamental difference: advertisers on Google choose their segmented targets based on many variables, but Google will never give them the identity, address or personal data of its users, which it zealously guards, applying far superior security to do so than most of its competitors. This article starts off well, but then it reveals its true colors.

bronzeage 8y ago

If you don't like Facebook don't use it, it's that simple. Social networks need a critical mass of people to run, even a naive user would stop using Facebook when most of his friends aren't there. Facebook isn't the first social network and it isn't the last. It gained the most momentum, sure, but it will eventually fall. The trend is already downward. Anything other than just moving on not using Facebook is half measure. If you're still using Facebook by now, either you are naive or misinformed.

mdolon 8y ago
I don’t think it’s that simple. For many, some of these social network products (ie Facebook or Instagram) have become deeply engrained in their lifestyle. Yes, they can still stop using them, but it is not that easy to because of the immediate consequences. If all of your friends and family use a product and have grown accustomed to communicating with you via that channel, it is difficult to offer alternatives — it’s completely feasible yes, but nevertheless still difficult. There is a psychological ball and chain effect that these networks create, which, in my mind, is one of the biggest dangers. That a corporation has enough leverage over your behavior to make leaving it’s product a psychologically or physically tough decision seems dangerous and wrong.
marci 8y ago
In some places, saying "If you don't like Facebook don't use it, it's that simple" is akin to "If you don't like Facebook don't use the Internet, it's that simple" https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-...

bronzeage 8y ago

I've heard so many creepy Facebook stories by now. I know a psychologist who is well aware of privacy, which created a pseudonym account only to avoid her patients, which had the whole thing blown in her face when she installed Facebook app which then immediately suggested those patients she tried to avoid just because she had their phone, and those patients could briefly see her as a suggestion too. Nothing could help at this point, it didn't even need her permission for the phone contacts, just her phone number was enough for Facebook because it had already gotten the contacts of her patients which contained her number. Just think about how ridiculous this is for a moment: anyone, including that shady taxi driver you ordered, or the plumber, or whatever, can suddenly get you as friend option in Facebook because you happened to call each other the other day and you're living in the same city. It gets super creepy really fast.

DanBC 8y ago
Similarly I visit mental health hospitals and facebook recommends patients of those hospitals to me as new friends. It's really fucking creepy.
fingerlocks 8y ago
> anyone, including that shady taxi driver you ordered Wouldn't you have to save the shady taxi driver's number to your contact list for this to work?

gregknicholson 8y ago

> I still believe social networks have a future, but that this future will have to be based on radically different business models, ones that do not see users as a commodity to be bought and sold, and that instead, respect them. I don't accept the assumption that a social network must have a business model, or that it must be a business.