4 ms·

s/Facebook/any privately owned and controlled hardware-software platforms

digging 3y ago
Yes, but that's a separate point entirely. The point here is that facebook is particularly abhorrent. It's a risk to offload any data to anyone outside of your own self, but it's a serious mistake to interact with a zuck product in any way.
dylan604 3y ago
Is FB privately owned? I disagree with your sentiment. Being public/private doesn't make one more/less trustworthy. I would posit it is the business model of the company itself that should be given scrutiny.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > Is FB privately owned? Yes. It's privately owned, and publicly traded. Publicly owned would be like the USPS or national parks.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Is this the normal understanding of private/public companies? I don't own the USPS nor do I own the national parks. However, taxes pay for them, so we are given access to them. NASA is another example. I can't just walk into the JPL and start using a computer. However, any data that is produced by NASA, I can use just like I can use the national parks.
    - sidfthec 3y ago
      > I don't own the USPS nor do I own the national parks. Yes we do (if you're a US citizen). You even get to vote for the "board of directors" so to speak (the legislative/executive branches of the US gov). As for your other example, I can own quite a bit of a company and still get denied access to their offices and computer systems.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        If I own it, I can take it home with me. If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it. If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it. This high minded notion of "public owned" is quite different than what we are discussing here. The fact we're having this goofy conversation is sad.
        sidfthec 3y ago
        > I can take it home with me. I own part of Google. I can't take it home with me. I don't even know what that would mean. > If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it. It is indeed possible to get a permit to build on/use public grounds. > If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it. You can vote for representation that could in theory restrict access to just you. The other owners probably wouldn't agree to it, though. There are a lot of owners who want open access. I think you're confusing things here. You seem to be talking about having full ownership of something, as if partial ownership isn't a thing.
        Zambyte 3y ago
        sidfthec is a little confused, but they've got the spirit. Here is the key: the public owns it. Not any individual member of the public. The public doesn't have a home, but if it did, it already took the national parks there. The public can get a permit to build there. The public can refuse to allow anyone else to use it. Remember: members of the public are not the public. "Anyone else" here actually includes members of the public (ie: you and I).
  - blackmesaind 3y ago
    I've never heard someone confuse private sector with privately owned. What do you think is being traded publicly? (Hint: it rhymes with blownership)
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      Just because the public can trade it doen't mean the public owns it. Just because I can (legally) buy a Ferrari doesn't mean I own one.
      - blackmesaind 3y ago
        The public have bought stock (a.k.a partial ownership of the company), so the public owns it. You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it. Having performed an "Initial Public Offering" (IPO) means explicitly that the public has purchased, at least in part, ownership of your company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector
        Zambyte 3y ago
        > The public have bought stock (a.k.a partial ownership of the company), so the public owns it. No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock. > You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it. No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company This link does not talk about public ownership. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector This link talks about public ownership in the same way I have explained. You are not the public. You are a member of the public.
        blackmesaind 3y ago
        > No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock. Members of the public own stock, so the public owns stock. Your distinction here is pedantic at best, but generally plain wrong. > No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one. It seems the concept of a metaphor struggles to take grasp. I'll leave progress in this area to those certified. > This link does not talk about public ownership. It's very literally the first line. If you're going to be a pedant, be right.
- sircastor 3y ago
  > Is FB privately owned? Ostensibly, no. But practically, there is a single majority shareholder who can choose to do pretty much whatever he wants with the company. So... kind of?
- j45 3y ago
  Some would say lots there

Yes, but that's a separate point entirely. The point here is that facebook is particularly abhorrent. It's a risk to offload any data to anyone outside of your own self, but it's a serious mistake to interact with a zuck product in any way.

dylan604 3y ago

Is FB privately owned? I disagree with your sentiment. Being public/private doesn't make one more/less trustworthy. I would posit it is the business model of the company itself that should be given scrutiny.

Zambyte 3y ago
> Is FB privately owned? Yes. It's privately owned, and publicly traded. Publicly owned would be like the USPS or national parks.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Is this the normal understanding of private/public companies? I don't own the USPS nor do I own the national parks. However, taxes pay for them, so we are given access to them. NASA is another example. I can't just walk into the JPL and start using a computer. However, any data that is produced by NASA, I can use just like I can use the national parks.
  - sidfthec 3y ago
    > I don't own the USPS nor do I own the national parks. Yes we do (if you're a US citizen). You even get to vote for the "board of directors" so to speak (the legislative/executive branches of the US gov). As for your other example, I can own quite a bit of a company and still get denied access to their offices and computer systems.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If I own it, I can take it home with me. If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it. If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it. This high minded notion of "public owned" is quite different than what we are discussing here. The fact we're having this goofy conversation is sad.
      - sidfthec 3y ago
        > I can take it home with me. I own part of Google. I can't take it home with me. I don't even know what that would mean. > If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it. It is indeed possible to get a permit to build on/use public grounds. > If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it. You can vote for representation that could in theory restrict access to just you. The other owners probably wouldn't agree to it, though. There are a lot of owners who want open access. I think you're confusing things here. You seem to be talking about having full ownership of something, as if partial ownership isn't a thing.
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        sidfthec is a little confused, but they've got the spirit. Here is the key: the public owns it. Not any individual member of the public. The public doesn't have a home, but if it did, it already took the national parks there. The public can get a permit to build there. The public can refuse to allow anyone else to use it. Remember: members of the public are not the public. "Anyone else" here actually includes members of the public (ie: you and I).
- blackmesaind 3y ago
  I've never heard someone confuse private sector with privately owned. What do you think is being traded publicly? (Hint: it rhymes with blownership)
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    Just because the public can trade it doen't mean the public owns it. Just because I can (legally) buy a Ferrari doesn't mean I own one.
    - blackmesaind 3y ago
      The public have bought stock (a.k.a partial ownership of the company), so the public owns it. You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it. Having performed an "Initial Public Offering" (IPO) means explicitly that the public has purchased, at least in part, ownership of your company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        > The public have bought stock (a.k.a partial ownership of the company), so the public owns it. No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock. > You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it. No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company This link does not talk about public ownership. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector This link talks about public ownership in the same way I have explained. You are not the public. You are a member of the public.
        blackmesaind 3y ago
        > No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock. Members of the public own stock, so the public owns stock. Your distinction here is pedantic at best, but generally plain wrong. > No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one. It seems the concept of a metaphor struggles to take grasp. I'll leave progress in this area to those certified. > This link does not talk about public ownership. It's very literally the first line. If you're going to be a pedant, be right.
sircastor 3y ago
> Is FB privately owned? Ostensibly, no. But practically, there is a single majority shareholder who can choose to do pretty much whatever he wants with the company. So... kind of?
j45 3y ago
Some would say lots there