3 ms·

No. Because many businesses rely on data available. FAANG would be out of business then.

inetknght 7y ago
If FAANG business depends on data which should be private then FAANG should be out of business.
jonhohle 7y ago
I worked at Amazon, which has a ton of data about your shopping habits that allow them to make targeted decisions on a customer's behalf. You know what? The vast majority of that data (at the time) came from observing customer behavior on properties owned by Amazon. In my mind, that's perfectly reasonable - what I do within the boundaries of their business is our shared interaction and we both have the opportunity to make decisions based on those interactions. The major exception for Amazon is affiliate links, which, for the business i was in, weren't used as data sources. Apple is not significantly different. Between Apple and me, who else knows our business and what does Apple know about me outside of my interactions with them (maybe more now with Apple Pay). For the most part, Netflix is the same. Sure they know what I watch, but why does that matter if they're only using it to improve their own business and make programming choices? Google and Facebook, on the other hand, blanket the internet with tracking beacons, read my email, keep shadow profiles (I don't have a facebook account, never have had one, but I'm sure they know more about me than I'd like), eavesdrop on conversations (I suppose Amazon is in that business now, too), track locations, steal contact data, trick people training their ML algos, etc. As is said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", FB and Google have far more than that and a single bad actor with access to that data could make life extremely difficult for just about anyone in the world.
qwsxyh 7y ago
Yeah, good. I value my privacy far more than somebody's profit.
asark 7y ago
"Businesses rely on being shitty so we can't outlaw being shitty or they might have to find a way to operate without being shitty, or else stop operating" isn't really convincing me.
rndgermandude 7y ago
AAN actually sell stuff other than hyper-targeted ads. F and G (and AAN) still can sell ads, just less targeted ones. They would suffer a bit (or a bit more), but not outright be forced out of business. And same goes for most if not all other FAANG-tier companies not explicitly included in that acronym. As for the "improving service" angle, e.g. Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize recommendations. And a lot of "improvements" and metrics do not really need detailed data collection per person anyway. Collecting anonymous data in broader groupings is often quite fine. E.g. "Strange Things is really popular our total-views counter says ergo order a new season". There is no need for Netflix to know exactly who specifically watched the show to make such a decision.
- asark 7y ago
  Is this a generational thing, or an industry-you're-in blindness thing? Or both? We had an economy, and even advertising (so, so much of it) before spyvertising was such a huge thing. It was fine. The sky did not fall. For some reason there's a set of people who seem to think it'll be the end of the world if we stop letting companies operate private dragnet spy operations.
  - beecat 7y ago
    I didn't see this before I posted my reply. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who is seeing this. I would go so far as instead of saying: > It was fine. To say that "it was better", because there was more competition. That's a keen insight, that it might be a "generational thing". I remember things, in general, working better before the Shermann Antitrust Act stopped applying to technology companies.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize recommendations. If they ask for the data for that purpose, then they should only be allowed to use the data for that purpose.
JohnFen 7y ago
Businesses relying on collecting data without explicit permission should go out of business.
root_axis 7y ago
This is absolutely false. This isn't true of Facebook. This isn't true of Apple. This isn't true of Amazon. This isn't true of Netflix. Google... likely they would be wounded, but it definitely wouldn't make them go out of businesses.
darkpuma 7y ago
Only if they fail to adapt. And if they can't adapt, then good riddance. The history books are littered with examples of huge corporations that failed to adapt then died. FAANG isn't special.
beecat 7y ago
I don't understand comments like this. I see this sentiment adopted, and echoed by so many really smart people who should know better. They talk about FAANG like they're essential services, like the food supply, or water. Almost as if it's not a real option for ANY business to fail or be overtaken by a competitor. Regardless of their current size and scope, if they all disappeared over the course of a month, do you honestly think nothing would rise up to take their places almost immediately? I mean, I would definitely move a product or two to market and attempt fill some of the demand left in their wake. Wouldn't you?

If FAANG business depends on data which should be private then FAANG should be out of business.

I worked at Amazon, which has a ton of data about your shopping habits that allow them to make targeted decisions on a customer's behalf. You know what? The vast majority of that data (at the time) came from observing customer behavior on properties owned by Amazon. In my mind, that's perfectly reasonable - what I do within the boundaries of their business is our shared interaction and we both have the opportunity to make decisions based on those interactions. The major exception for Amazon is affiliate links, which, for the business i was in, weren't used as data sources. Apple is not significantly different. Between Apple and me, who else knows our business and what does Apple know about me outside of my interactions with them (maybe more now with Apple Pay). For the most part, Netflix is the same. Sure they know what I watch, but why does that matter if they're only using it to improve their own business and make programming choices? Google and Facebook, on the other hand, blanket the internet with tracking beacons, read my email, keep shadow profiles (I don't have a facebook account, never have had one, but I'm sure they know more about me than I'd like), eavesdrop on conversations (I suppose Amazon is in that business now, too), track locations, steal contact data, trick people training their ML algos, etc. As is said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.", FB and Google have far more than that and a single bad actor with access to that data could make life extremely difficult for just about anyone in the world.

qwsxyh 7y ago

Yeah, good. I value my privacy far more than somebody's profit.

asark 7y ago

"Businesses rely on being shitty so we can't outlaw being shitty or they might have to find a way to operate without being shitty, or else stop operating" isn't really convincing me.

rndgermandude 7y ago

AAN actually sell stuff other than hyper-targeted ads. F and G (and AAN) still can sell ads, just less targeted ones. They would suffer a bit (or a bit more), but not outright be forced out of business. And same goes for most if not all other FAANG-tier companies not explicitly included in that acronym. As for the "improving service" angle, e.g. Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize recommendations. And a lot of "improvements" and metrics do not really need detailed data collection per person anyway. Collecting anonymous data in broader groupings is often quite fine. E.g. "Strange Things is really popular our total-views counter says ergo order a new season". There is no need for Netflix to know exactly who specifically watched the show to make such a decision.

asark 7y ago
Is this a generational thing, or an industry-you're-in blindness thing? Or both? We had an economy, and even advertising (so, so much of it) before spyvertising was such a huge thing. It was fine. The sky did not fall. For some reason there's a set of people who seem to think it'll be the end of the world if we stop letting companies operate private dragnet spy operations.
- beecat 7y ago
  I didn't see this before I posted my reply. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who is seeing this. I would go so far as instead of saying: > It was fine. To say that "it was better", because there was more competition. That's a keen insight, that it might be a "generational thing". I remember things, in general, working better before the Shermann Antitrust Act stopped applying to technology companies.
JohnFen 7y ago
> Netflix could ask if it's OK to collect history to improve/personalize recommendations. If they ask for the data for that purpose, then they should only be allowed to use the data for that purpose.

JohnFen 7y ago

Businesses relying on collecting data without explicit permission should go out of business.

root_axis 7y ago

This is absolutely false. This isn't true of Facebook. This isn't true of Apple. This isn't true of Amazon. This isn't true of Netflix. Google... likely they would be wounded, but it definitely wouldn't make them go out of businesses.

darkpuma 7y ago

Only if they fail to adapt. And if they can't adapt, then good riddance. The history books are littered with examples of huge corporations that failed to adapt then died. FAANG isn't special.

beecat 7y ago

I don't understand comments like this. I see this sentiment adopted, and echoed by so many really smart people who should know better. They talk about FAANG like they're essential services, like the food supply, or water. Almost as if it's not a real option for ANY business to fail or be overtaken by a competitor. Regardless of their current size and scope, if they all disappeared over the course of a month, do you honestly think nothing would rise up to take their places almost immediately? I mean, I would definitely move a product or two to market and attempt fill some of the demand left in their wake. Wouldn't you?