3 ms·
So privacy is only for the rich...
by nowherebeen 5y ago
So privacy is only for the rich...
- alistairSH 5y agoDidn't Zuck buy up the homes around his own for extra privacy? Privacy for me, none for thee.
- spurgu 5y agoTo be fair that's something I'd do as well if I could afford it, even if nobody knew who I was.
- dzhiurgis 5y agoMusk done the opposite. Even when you own heaps of land people still know you’re somewhere there. So it’s better to free up those houses and use hotels, etc to jump from place to place.
- simias 5y agoI would say "privacy is only for those who value it". Nobody rich or poor is forced to use Facebook (and plenty of wealthy people do use it). I think Zuckerberg is more sensitized to privacy issues because he knows how the sausage is made.
- nowherebeen 5y ago> Nobody rich or poor is forced to use Facebook (and plenty of wealthy people do use it). That's technically not true though. Whenever website developers add the FB Like button. Those scripts are collecting data about you where you have a FB account or not by placing a cookie on your browser. If the next website you visit also has the Like button, they are tracking you. In this case, we are all "forced" to be tracked. FB's real tracking ability isn't on their platform, but thousands of app and website developers that incorporate their Login and Like buttons.
- throwaway_kufu 5y agoFacebook has violated their own privacy policy many times, faced legal penalties and settled with the FCC for their violations, then violated their settlement agreements with additional data breaches. He isn’t more sensitized to privacy issues, so much as he can afford to spend the time and money required to protect himself...most people, like the majority of his users responsible for him having that kind of wealth, don’t have the luxury.