3 ms·

As much as I despise facebook et al surely this problem lies completely with the over-reach of customs. If anything the solution is to boycott the US. This is

by tjoff 7y ago

As much as I despise facebook et al surely this problem lies completely with the over-reach of customs. If anything the solution is to boycott the US. This is ludicrous.

edejong 7y ago
With great power lies great responsibility. People give great power by using centralized social media from a single nation without fully understanding the implications of it.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > centralized social media from a single nation Does this matter? Would it make any difference if the same message was spotted on a self-hosted out-of-us mastodon instance?
  - edejong 7y ago
    Yes, it certainly does, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it is much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system. Instead, by working on a distributed system, we could change the protocol to increase the effort needed to mine data. Second of all, we gain the opportunity to know who or what has requested our data. We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us. Lastly, we can distribute the available power of information over multiple nations. When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      > much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them. > We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us. You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning. > When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect. Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
      - edejong 7y ago
        > At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them. I disagree. It is harder for Joe Average, but for state actors MUCH easier to scrape one system, instead of thousands. Also, it is possible to design decentralized systems in such a way that scraping becomes almost impossible. > You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning. You can block based on more than IP address. Decentralized systems can use networks of trust to curtail unwanted information gathering. > Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it. Of course border control has access to it, regardless of your privacy settings. Do you really believe FB has full control over your data?
nabla9 7y ago
This is just one example. Insurance companies, banks etc. can use social media connections. Friends with risky hobbies and insurance premiums go up. Unemployed friends and it's harder to get mortgage loan.
- tjoff 7y ago
  And that are all examples of despicable behavior that has no place in society and are all deserving of jail time. What's wrong isn't social media enabling that (there are countless of other sources anyway), it is the act of actually doing it.
  - cloverich 7y ago
    Here's one problem. They don't have to do this directly. They could outsource to third party analytics firms who provide only "customer scoring" that turns out to be slightly more accurate than in-house, privacy sensitive models. Slightly more accurate turns out to be millions or billions of dollars. It becomes impossible to not use this information. And that behind the scenes information consists of analytics firms who can link not just your social media accounts, but various fingerprinting sources with varying degrees of accuracy. Given the complexity, people get lost in the numbers. That some people are intentionally blacklisted seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if there is any alternative or safety from it.
    - tjoff 7y ago
      Hiring someone else to do the dirty-work has never been acceptable. GDPR is a start.

by tjoff 7y ago

As much as I despise facebook et al surely this problem lies completely with the over-reach of customs. If anything the solution is to boycott the US. This is ludicrous.

edejong 7y ago

With great power lies great responsibility. People give great power by using centralized social media from a single nation without fully understanding the implications of it.

viraptor 7y ago
> centralized social media from a single nation Does this matter? Would it make any difference if the same message was spotted on a self-hosted out-of-us mastodon instance?
- edejong 7y ago
  Yes, it certainly does, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it is much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system. Instead, by working on a distributed system, we could change the protocol to increase the effort needed to mine data. Second of all, we gain the opportunity to know who or what has requested our data. We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us. Lastly, we can distribute the available power of information over multiple nations. When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    > much easier and cost-effective to gain full knowledge of the graph data in a centralized system At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them. > We can decide to block these requests if they are used against us. You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning. > When policies change, data (and information) can flow to places where these policies have no effect. Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it.
    - edejong 7y ago
      > At least right now, that's not true. It's harder to automatically scrape Facebook than a random decentralised system - mainly because decentralised systems need to have the data sharing built in to work. Sharing the data in a structured way is the central idea behind them. I disagree. It is harder for Joe Average, but for state actors MUCH easier to scrape one system, instead of thousands. Also, it is possible to design decentralized systems in such a way that scraping becomes almost impossible. > You're not going to be able to block this access from gov only. If known networks become blocked, new gateways can be obtained for less money than is worth mentioning. You can block based on more than IP address. Decentralized systems can use networks of trust to curtail unwanted information gathering. > Again, if you're interested in anything resembling a social network, you'll need to share your data with a lot of people. Unless you want to keep it all private - you can do the same thing on FB currently, and border control will not have access to it. Of course border control has access to it, regardless of your privacy settings. Do you really believe FB has full control over your data?

nabla9 7y ago

This is just one example. Insurance companies, banks etc. can use social media connections. Friends with risky hobbies and insurance premiums go up. Unemployed friends and it's harder to get mortgage loan.

tjoff 7y ago
And that are all examples of despicable behavior that has no place in society and are all deserving of jail time. What's wrong isn't social media enabling that (there are countless of other sources anyway), it is the act of actually doing it.
- cloverich 7y ago
  Here's one problem. They don't have to do this directly. They could outsource to third party analytics firms who provide only "customer scoring" that turns out to be slightly more accurate than in-house, privacy sensitive models. Slightly more accurate turns out to be millions or billions of dollars. It becomes impossible to not use this information. And that behind the scenes information consists of analytics firms who can link not just your social media accounts, but various fingerprinting sources with varying degrees of accuracy. Given the complexity, people get lost in the numbers. That some people are intentionally blacklisted seems inevitable. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if there is any alternative or safety from it.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    Hiring someone else to do the dirty-work has never been acceptable. GDPR is a start.