5 ms·

I am way past that point. I used to use Slack personally but I like Slack about as much as FB, so I now primarily have reverted to my own personal blog, where

I am way past that point. I used to use Slack personally but I like Slack about as much as FB, so I now primarily have reverted to my own personal blog, where I make posts with video etc and take comments, and post those posts on FB, Twitter and other social media. It's like I have gone back to what works. My closest family and friends have a login to that blog where we share posts that are private. All our YouTube videos are unlisted and embedded on the blog with settings to prevent "Watch on YouTube" etc. I have my own nix servers and maintain shared family audio/photo/video/media content. We extensively use Signal, Facetime and Skype. When you have a large extended group that wants to stay interconnected globally there is only so much you can do - different participants have their own preferences and if you want to stay connected with them you have to use their poison of choice. It is unrealistic to alienate users who only know one or two platforms and lack the technical expertise, time and yes money to invest in yet again something new. Also, I never did understand the benefit you get from deleting your FB/Instagram account - Meta still owns your content. It never gets deleted. Isn't it better to maintain your account but lock it down to your own standards? (e.g. link external content, share content to focused groups of users, etc). You can use Messenger (which is all some people actually use). What do you gain by deleting the account? Just losing control. EDIT: One thing I think is great with FB is the ability to export all your content. I do that at least annually and have a MySQL database into which I import it all (which gives me the coveted ability to search for a specific post either by date back in 2008 for instance, by text etc). Why would I want to lose all that?

cassianoleal 4y ago
> Meta still owns your content. It never gets deleted. How can you verify that? This would be against the GDPR and other data protection laws in other countries.
- stevenjgarner 4y ago
  I urge you to read Facebook's "Terms of Service" [0]. 'Facebook's terms allow them "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook." In layman's terms' [1] Obviously the internal procedures Meta follows regarding content is unknown. It is probably different for different countries - you mention GDPR, well very little of my content is shared in Europe, so I'm sure the rules that apply to me are completely different from rules that apply for Europeans. It is probably different for different time periods in Facebook history, and it is definitely different for different levels of universality of sharing. That is if you post something "Publicly" then it gets shared by another user, then the original post account is deleted, in all my testing the content that was shared by the other user persists. Facebook has argued that it is "public" content [2]. I personally have seen corporate posts get LIKED and commented by users who delete their accounts, but their content endures on the corporate page. I do not envy Meta. Knowledge of the legal environment in every country for a global operation makes programming in assembly seem trivial by comparison. I had a friend who was a federal (securities) agent who told me back in the 1980's that the legal environment in the US is deliberately complicated/obfuscated to the point where if you are in compliance with one law, you are automatically in violation of another. It is up to you to pay for representation to contest constitutionality on appeal to a high enough level for acquittal. If you are unsure about what Facebook does and it matters to you, then test it - you will find FB still has a few human users, some of whom may be interested in running tests with you. Posting content of different types, different sharing, deleting different users etc ... test it! Just delete your account. Then later try and recover the account. It is all still there. For me, I just assume when FB says 'it may retain copies of "some material" from deleted accounts' [2], I just assume there is no privacy and that I own nothing. [0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php [1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/who-legally-owns-your-facebook-posts/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/who-legally-... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ok-youve-deleted-facebook-but-is-your-data-still-out-there/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ok-youve-deleted-facebook-but-i...
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    Thanks for the information. > Knowledge of the legal environment in every country for a global operation makes programming in assembly seem trivial by comparison. That may be so but they still need to comply. I've just signed up with the same email address I had on my old account. I can't say for certain whether my data has been permanently deleted but I can't find any of it. I'll try to get in touch with others who have had access to my old posts and comments and see if they are still there. Edit to add: The deletion option on Facebook states: Delete account This is permanent. When you delete your Facebook account, you won't be able to retrieve the content or information that you've shared on Facebook. Your Messenger and all of your messages will also be deleted. Hopefully this means everything does get deleted.
    - stevenjgarner 4y ago
      I wish you every good thing. I'm going down something of a rabbit hole on this and was so surprised at the Wikipedia discussion on US privacy: 'Some conservative justices do not consider privacy to be a legal right, as when discussing the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did not consider privacy to be a right, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that there is "no general right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution in 2007. Many Republican interest groups and activists desire for appointed justices to be like Justice Thomas and Scalia since they uphold originalism, which indirectly helps strengthen the argument against the legal protection of privacy.' [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Argument_against_legal_protection_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Argument_against_legal...
      - cassianoleal 4y ago
        Wow... That's dystopian at best.

cassianoleal 4y ago

> Meta still owns your content. It never gets deleted. How can you verify that? This would be against the GDPR and other data protection laws in other countries.

stevenjgarner 4y ago
I urge you to read Facebook's "Terms of Service" [0]. 'Facebook's terms allow them "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook." In layman's terms' [1] Obviously the internal procedures Meta follows regarding content is unknown. It is probably different for different countries - you mention GDPR, well very little of my content is shared in Europe, so I'm sure the rules that apply to me are completely different from rules that apply for Europeans. It is probably different for different time periods in Facebook history, and it is definitely different for different levels of universality of sharing. That is if you post something "Publicly" then it gets shared by another user, then the original post account is deleted, in all my testing the content that was shared by the other user persists. Facebook has argued that it is "public" content [2]. I personally have seen corporate posts get LIKED and commented by users who delete their accounts, but their content endures on the corporate page. I do not envy Meta. Knowledge of the legal environment in every country for a global operation makes programming in assembly seem trivial by comparison. I had a friend who was a federal (securities) agent who told me back in the 1980's that the legal environment in the US is deliberately complicated/obfuscated to the point where if you are in compliance with one law, you are automatically in violation of another. It is up to you to pay for representation to contest constitutionality on appeal to a high enough level for acquittal. If you are unsure about what Facebook does and it matters to you, then test it - you will find FB still has a few human users, some of whom may be interested in running tests with you. Posting content of different types, different sharing, deleting different users etc ... test it! Just delete your account. Then later try and recover the account. It is all still there. For me, I just assume when FB says 'it may retain copies of "some material" from deleted accounts' [2], I just assume there is no privacy and that I own nothing. [0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php [1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/who-legally-owns-your-facebook-posts/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/who-legally-... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ok-youve-deleted-facebook-but-is-your-data-still-out-there/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ok-youve-deleted-facebook-but-i...
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Thanks for the information. > Knowledge of the legal environment in every country for a global operation makes programming in assembly seem trivial by comparison. That may be so but they still need to comply. I've just signed up with the same email address I had on my old account. I can't say for certain whether my data has been permanently deleted but I can't find any of it. I'll try to get in touch with others who have had access to my old posts and comments and see if they are still there. Edit to add: The deletion option on Facebook states: Delete account This is permanent. When you delete your Facebook account, you won't be able to retrieve the content or information that you've shared on Facebook. Your Messenger and all of your messages will also be deleted. Hopefully this means everything does get deleted.
  - stevenjgarner 4y ago
    I wish you every good thing. I'm going down something of a rabbit hole on this and was so surprised at the Wikipedia discussion on US privacy: 'Some conservative justices do not consider privacy to be a legal right, as when discussing the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia did not consider privacy to be a right, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that there is "no general right to privacy" in the U.S. Constitution in 2007. Many Republican interest groups and activists desire for appointed justices to be like Justice Thomas and Scalia since they uphold originalism, which indirectly helps strengthen the argument against the legal protection of privacy.' [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Argument_against_legal_protection_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy#Argument_against_legal...
    - cassianoleal 4y ago
      Wow... That's dystopian at best.