4 ms·

What a strange article and initiative by Meta. So we're expected to believe that Meta is doing all this engineering out of some newly discovered concern for use

by imiric 2y ago

What a strange article and initiative by Meta. So we're expected to believe that Meta is doing all this engineering out of some newly discovered concern for user privacy, and ignore the decades of blatant privacy violations, for which they've been fined numerous times? I suppose they've decided that the cost of this effort is less than the fines they would have to pay otherwise, so it probably makes business sense. It doesn't hurt as PR fodder to balance the negative press either. But let's not be fooled. Advertising and user privacy is a zero-sum game. Adtech is a giant business today precisely because they've violated user privacy since the beginning, taking advantage of the fact that the average web user is either unaware of what they're giving up, or they just don't care. All these supposed privacy initiatives by adtech corporations are simply an answer to increased regulation and public awareness. Otherwise they would happily continue siphoning everyone's data without thinking twice about it. They actually still do for areas of their business that are not under the spotlight yet: shadow profiles, data broker transactions, etc.

TZubiri 2y ago
Meta correlates to privacy, you just have the correlation inversed. You have privacy settings on almost all meta apps. They have tools to make it hard to download personal pictures without uploader consent. They respond to privacy concerns constantly. Maybe that's why you are confused, you read or listen to their responses to privacy concerns, and you focus on the concerns rather than the responses.
- yowayb 2y ago
  This resonates with me. I’ve found big tech to always give me reasonable, sometimes excessive control. I’ve also found “privacy” to be a thought-terminating device that prevents granular discussion of who needs what. I also personally find it weird that so many people highlight the opposing nature of business and government as if it wasn’t enshrined in law.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  "They have tools to make it hard to download personal pictures without uploader consent" What tools are you talking about. Facebook images are save as. Privacy rules can make your photo not appear on your profile but tag a friend and their friends get to see it. A few years ago facebook would show you the first picture of every private album if you went to a general url (photos?id=1234). Back in those days photo urls were sequential with hundreds of numbers skipped between photos but easy enough to take the first photo of a private album and sequentially get every photo. If you put your photos on facebook at some point someone you didn't realize had access to your photos.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    You are right, facebook still allows downloads, but Whatsapp, instagram, stories that kind of things block downloads
luma 2y ago
My guess is that adherence to the ever-shifting sand dunes of local privacy regulations across the entire planet was such a burden that Meta has been forced to come up with a global, flexible, and broadly compliant solution.
- trhway 2y ago
  Reminds jurisdiction specific tax/etc. configuration in ERP :)
yodsanklai 2y ago
> I suppose they've decided that the cost of this effort is less than the fines they would have to pay otherwise The goal of any corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. That's precisely the role of the law to ensure that this is compatible with public interest.
numpad0 2y ago
They're doing bare minimum and solving that problem with technology. As if well intended regulations could drive the civilization forward and benefit all. Strange, isn't it.
try_the_bass 2y ago
> violated user privacy since the beginning But why is there an expectation of privacy on the web, anyway? When browsing the web you're utilizing hundreds or thousands of other peoples' infrastructure, going to sites that are public or semi-public (aka "public spaces"), and otherwise interacting with strangers in shared spaces. In the physical world, there is no common expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you go to a shopping mall, you may be observed by either the mall itself or its client stores, and this is not a "violation of your privacy". You elected to go to a public space, knowing you might or would be observed by any other occupant of that space. If you go to your friend's house, you may be observed by their security cameras, if they have them. This is also not really a violation of your privacy. You could also have a conversation with your friend about not being on their cameras, and maybe come to an agreement--presumably because they trust you. This isn't something that scales to hundreds of strangers, much less thousands or millions. I think the core issue I see with the stance you appear to hold is this: privacy is not a fundamental feature of anything. Any interaction with another person involves the exchange of information, and the amount of information exchanged is neither fair nor necessarily finite. How much information is exchanged is not just a function of the purpose of the interaction. It's also determined by the abilities of all parties to observe and analyze the interaction. Trying to argue that privacy should be a fundamental right seems to ignore the obvious: that forcing any particular level of privacy requires making sacrifices that significantly impede the quality of interactions, especially those involving parties that do not necessarily trust each other. If you care about privacy, interact with other privacy-minded individuals and establish a common set of norms amongst yourselves, and acknowledge that those norms will be different for every group. This is sane and defensible. What isn't is demanding that the world adhere to your standards of privacy, while claiming that it's some sort of right that should be protected by someone other than yourself. Understand that privacy cuts both ways: most of the world is apparently fine with having no expectation of privacy on public places--online or offline. They're okay with this because it makes antisocial behavior harder to hide, and makes pro-social behavior easier to verify. If everyone demanded there be an expectation of privacy in those public places, the world would be very different, and not in a good way. Distrust would be the norm, and cooperative endeavors would be bogged down by the endless need to make sure those you're working with are indeed who they say they are. If you want good examples of what it looks like when privacy in public spaces is the norm on a large scale, look no further than the cryptocurrency world. Not exactly a shining example of a "pro-social culture".

by imiric 2y ago

TZubiri 2y ago

Meta correlates to privacy, you just have the correlation inversed. You have privacy settings on almost all meta apps. They have tools to make it hard to download personal pictures without uploader consent. They respond to privacy concerns constantly. Maybe that's why you are confused, you read or listen to their responses to privacy concerns, and you focus on the concerns rather than the responses.

yowayb 2y ago
This resonates with me. I’ve found big tech to always give me reasonable, sometimes excessive control. I’ve also found “privacy” to be a thought-terminating device that prevents granular discussion of who needs what. I also personally find it weird that so many people highlight the opposing nature of business and government as if it wasn’t enshrined in law.
ipaddr 2y ago
"They have tools to make it hard to download personal pictures without uploader consent" What tools are you talking about. Facebook images are save as. Privacy rules can make your photo not appear on your profile but tag a friend and their friends get to see it. A few years ago facebook would show you the first picture of every private album if you went to a general url (photos?id=1234). Back in those days photo urls were sequential with hundreds of numbers skipped between photos but easy enough to take the first photo of a private album and sequentially get every photo. If you put your photos on facebook at some point someone you didn't realize had access to your photos.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  You are right, facebook still allows downloads, but Whatsapp, instagram, stories that kind of things block downloads

luma 2y ago

My guess is that adherence to the ever-shifting sand dunes of local privacy regulations across the entire planet was such a burden that Meta has been forced to come up with a global, flexible, and broadly compliant solution.

trhway 2y ago
Reminds jurisdiction specific tax/etc. configuration in ERP :)

yodsanklai 2y ago

> I suppose they've decided that the cost of this effort is less than the fines they would have to pay otherwise The goal of any corporation is to generate profit for shareholders. That's precisely the role of the law to ensure that this is compatible with public interest.

numpad0 2y ago

They're doing bare minimum and solving that problem with technology. As if well intended regulations could drive the civilization forward and benefit all. Strange, isn't it.

try_the_bass 2y ago

> violated user privacy since the beginning But why is there an expectation of privacy on the web, anyway? When browsing the web you're utilizing hundreds or thousands of other peoples' infrastructure, going to sites that are public or semi-public (aka "public spaces"), and otherwise interacting with strangers in shared spaces. In the physical world, there is no common expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you go to a shopping mall, you may be observed by either the mall itself or its client stores, and this is not a "violation of your privacy". You elected to go to a public space, knowing you might or would be observed by any other occupant of that space. If you go to your friend's house, you may be observed by their security cameras, if they have them. This is also not really a violation of your privacy. You could also have a conversation with your friend about not being on their cameras, and maybe come to an agreement--presumably because they trust you. This isn't something that scales to hundreds of strangers, much less thousands or millions. I think the core issue I see with the stance you appear to hold is this: privacy is not a fundamental feature of anything. Any interaction with another person involves the exchange of information, and the amount of information exchanged is neither fair nor necessarily finite. How much information is exchanged is not just a function of the purpose of the interaction. It's also determined by the abilities of all parties to observe and analyze the interaction. Trying to argue that privacy should be a fundamental right seems to ignore the obvious: that forcing any particular level of privacy requires making sacrifices that significantly impede the quality of interactions, especially those involving parties that do not necessarily trust each other. If you care about privacy, interact with other privacy-minded individuals and establish a common set of norms amongst yourselves, and acknowledge that those norms will be different for every group. This is sane and defensible. What isn't is demanding that the world adhere to your standards of privacy, while claiming that it's some sort of right that should be protected by someone other than yourself. Understand that privacy cuts both ways: most of the world is apparently fine with having no expectation of privacy on public places--online or offline. They're okay with this because it makes antisocial behavior harder to hide, and makes pro-social behavior easier to verify. If everyone demanded there be an expectation of privacy in those public places, the world would be very different, and not in a good way. Distrust would be the norm, and cooperative endeavors would be bogged down by the endless need to make sure those you're working with are indeed who they say they are. If you want good examples of what it looks like when privacy in public spaces is the norm on a large scale, look no further than the cryptocurrency world. Not exactly a shining example of a "pro-social culture".