6 ms·

I’m getting really tired of this “big tech” word soup. It comes with a lot of presupposed negative connotation, despite nothing in this article being “big tech’

I’m getting really tired of this “big tech” word soup. It comes with a lot of presupposed negative connotation, despite nothing in this article being “big tech’s” doing (instead it’s “big government”). I know I’m largely shouting into a void here but I wish we could bring back some neutrality to news, reduce the editing-choice of extraneous emotion, and actually look at things with some balance and gray instead of reducing everything down to some kind of political rhetoric.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> nothing in this article being “big tech’s” doing (instead it’s “big government”). Big tech stores personal data, big government subpoenas the data secretly. They're both strongly to blame. And I don't really see how the phrase 'big tech' loses any subtlety in an article about facebook and other major services.
- jcadam 5y ago
  The lines between "big tech" and "big government" seem a bit blurry these days.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> despite nothing in this article being “big tech’s” doing Of course it is their doing. Why are they even storing messages and metadata to begin with? Why are they exposing us to this risk? There should be nothing there for any government to find. In an ideal world they'd be connecting us to each other peer-to-peer so that our encrypted communications don't even touch their servers. Bit Tech's insatiable hunger for personal data is a massive liability for all of us. Their guilt is not to be excused. Governments would have nothing if not for their extensive non-consensual data collection.
- rajup 5y ago
  That sounds very nice, do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >That sounds very nice, do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free. Really? I'm not so sure about that. If the FBI wants my data, they'll need to come to my premise with a warrant. Otherwise, they're SOL. And how much does that cost me over and above what I spend for the infrastructure I require? Zero. How many companies that mine my personal information (for whatever reasons) do I use? Zero. You are substituting your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature, IMHO.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      "We'd like to award you this $100M contract but first we need our back scratched"
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    The Holy Grail of perfect market research and optimal ad targeting for maximum profitability requires that we all live in a dystopian panopticon...
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free. http://valueflo.ws http://valueflo.ws asset backed flow -protocols built on top of the holochain dweb framework.
  - bifrost 5y ago
    Early ad companies didn't collect a ton of information and relied on clickthrough ratio to make money, I worked for one of the biggest in the late 90s. As time went on, people wanted more and more user data, click bots made targeting entirely neccesary.
- jedberg 5y ago
  That's not what most people want. Most people want a third party to store their messages. Look how most people react when they switch phones and their message history isn't there, or the change devices and there is no message history. Or how livid people get when their photos are gone. Most iPhone owner's backup plan is "iCloud". Most people don't care about privacy, they care about convenience.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    They want it backed up. That doesn't mean they want the company to have access to the data. Sometimes backup customers will use sub-services that require that, but it would be nice if it was behind a big privacy toggle.
    - jedberg 5y ago
      They don't want to lose their data if they lose their password/device. The only way that is possible is for the third party to have access to the data. I would posit most people don't care if a 3rd party has access to their data, all they care about is not losing their stuff when they lose their device/password. They don't care about the technology behind it, which requires the 3rd party to have access.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        There are other methods to ensure access. Extra devices. Postits on the back of their TV. Codes their friends have, with 3 of 5 needed. Carving it into jewelry.
        jedberg 5y ago
        Sure, but all of those are for more complicated than "sign up for iCloud". As I said, most people only care about convenience above all else. They are willing to trade convenience for 3rd party data access.
        5y ago
- alsobrsp 5y ago
  > Why are they even storing messages and metadata to begin with? The money is in the metadata
tedunangst 5y ago
Headline does imply that when the FBI seizes your messages from Little Tech, you would find out in a different timeframe, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> nothing in this article being “big tech’s” doing (instead it’s “big government”). Big tech stores personal data, big government subpoenas the data secretly. They're both strongly to blame. And I don't really see how the phrase 'big tech' loses any subtlety in an article about facebook and other major services.

jcadam 5y ago
The lines between "big tech" and "big government" seem a bit blurry these days.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> despite nothing in this article being “big tech’s” doing Of course it is their doing. Why are they even storing messages and metadata to begin with? Why are they exposing us to this risk? There should be nothing there for any government to find. In an ideal world they'd be connecting us to each other peer-to-peer so that our encrypted communications don't even touch their servers. Bit Tech's insatiable hunger for personal data is a massive liability for all of us. Their guilt is not to be excused. Governments would have nothing if not for their extensive non-consensual data collection.

rajup 5y ago
That sounds very nice, do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >That sounds very nice, do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free. Really? I'm not so sure about that. If the FBI wants my data, they'll need to come to my premise with a warrant. Otherwise, they're SOL. And how much does that cost me over and above what I spend for the infrastructure I require? Zero. How many companies that mine my personal information (for whatever reasons) do I use? Zero. You are substituting your trained-in prejudices for the laws of nature, IMHO.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    "We'd like to award you this $100M contract but first we need our back scratched"
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  The Holy Grail of perfect market research and optimal ad targeting for maximum profitability requires that we all live in a dystopian panopticon...
- beckman466 5y ago
  > do tell us if you have come up with or know of a (successful) business model where you do not have to collect the data of users. Nothing comes for free. http://valueflo.ws http://valueflo.ws asset backed flow -protocols built on top of the holochain dweb framework.
- bifrost 5y ago
  Early ad companies didn't collect a ton of information and relied on clickthrough ratio to make money, I worked for one of the biggest in the late 90s. As time went on, people wanted more and more user data, click bots made targeting entirely neccesary.
jedberg 5y ago
That's not what most people want. Most people want a third party to store their messages. Look how most people react when they switch phones and their message history isn't there, or the change devices and there is no message history. Or how livid people get when their photos are gone. Most iPhone owner's backup plan is "iCloud". Most people don't care about privacy, they care about convenience.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  They want it backed up. That doesn't mean they want the company to have access to the data. Sometimes backup customers will use sub-services that require that, but it would be nice if it was behind a big privacy toggle.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    They don't want to lose their data if they lose their password/device. The only way that is possible is for the third party to have access to the data. I would posit most people don't care if a 3rd party has access to their data, all they care about is not losing their stuff when they lose their device/password. They don't care about the technology behind it, which requires the 3rd party to have access.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      There are other methods to ensure access. Extra devices. Postits on the back of their TV. Codes their friends have, with 3 of 5 needed. Carving it into jewelry.
      - jedberg 5y ago
        Sure, but all of those are for more complicated than "sign up for iCloud". As I said, most people only care about convenience above all else. They are willing to trade convenience for 3rd party data access.
        5y ago
alsobrsp 5y ago
> Why are they even storing messages and metadata to begin with? The money is in the metadata

tedunangst 5y ago

Headline does imply that when the FBI seizes your messages from Little Tech, you would find out in a different timeframe, but I'm not sure that's the case.