6 ms·

I don’t think even Apple passes this test though. (And I do consider Apple to much better privacy wise than other big tech)

jakelazaroff 5y ago
We're not talking about Apple, though. You're presenting the context of Onavo's actions as though people weighed the pros and cons and made an informed decision about whether to use the app. I'm adding another bit of context that suggests people did not realize what Onavo was doing behind the scenes, and that Onavo concealed their behavior because otherwise people wouldn't use it.
spinningslate 5y ago
that wasn't the question asked. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're genuinely trying to describe Onavo's value exchange from your perspective. But it demonstrates the dissonance between a growing proportion of the public and fb. For example: 1. Facebook's use of "Integrity" is duplicitous. I'd wager strongly that the general public would assume the word to have its common-language meaning: that Facebook is operating 'with integrity'. That OP's comment is necessary evidences that the meaning is not as would be expected. To your earlier question, that is the "accusation". 2. "looks like your morals are that products that are free in exchange for anonymously analyzing your data are immoral". This is also duplicitous. It is increasingly clear that the cost of Facebook's products is very much more than "anonymously analyzing your data". Impacting teenage mental health[0] or polarizing political opinion[1] as just two examples. I suggest you re-read @tedivm's post: > Most of society is against spyware. It's not a controversial topic- spyware is pretty frowned upon. Spying on people does, to most people, show a lack of integrity. So does much of the other actions Facebook has taken and which are now coming out in these leaks. Your comments about Onavo might be factually correct, but you're missing the point. The reality of the surveillance economy is slowly seeping into societal consciousness, and it's not landing well. That Google/Apple/whomever also engage in it doesn't legitimise the behaviour. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-aware-instagram-harmful-effect-teenage-girls-leak-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-vortex-political-polarization/ https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-vortex-political-polari...

jakelazaroff 5y ago

We're not talking about Apple, though. You're presenting the context of Onavo's actions as though people weighed the pros and cons and made an informed decision about whether to use the app. I'm adding another bit of context that suggests people did not realize what Onavo was doing behind the scenes, and that Onavo concealed their behavior because otherwise people wouldn't use it.

spinningslate 5y ago

that wasn't the question asked. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're genuinely trying to describe Onavo's value exchange from your perspective. But it demonstrates the dissonance between a growing proportion of the public and fb. For example: 1. Facebook's use of "Integrity" is duplicitous. I'd wager strongly that the general public would assume the word to have its common-language meaning: that Facebook is operating 'with integrity'. That OP's comment is necessary evidences that the meaning is not as would be expected. To your earlier question, that is the "accusation". 2. "looks like your morals are that products that are free in exchange for anonymously analyzing your data are immoral". This is also duplicitous. It is increasingly clear that the cost of Facebook's products is very much more than "anonymously analyzing your data". Impacting teenage mental health[0] or polarizing political opinion[1] as just two examples. I suggest you re-read @tedivm's post: > Most of society is against spyware. It's not a controversial topic- spyware is pretty frowned upon. Spying on people does, to most people, show a lack of integrity. So does much of the other actions Facebook has taken and which are now coming out in these leaks. Your comments about Onavo might be factually correct, but you're missing the point. The reality of the surveillance economy is slowly seeping into societal consciousness, and it's not landing well. That Google/Apple/whomever also engage in it doesn't legitimise the behaviour. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-aware-instagram-harmful-effect-teenage-girls-leak-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-vortex-political-polarization/ https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-vortex-political-polari...