8 ms·
To me, this is just standard privacy hyperbole that rears it's head every now and then. Anyone remember the headlines several years ago when "Google 'scans' yo
by TomGullen 14y ago
To me, this is just standard privacy hyperbole that rears it's head every now and then.
Anyone remember the headlines several years ago when "Google 'scans' your emails to serve targetted ads'? When was the last time you heard someone complain about that anymore? No one does, because it doesn't matter.
Why should me sharing a link via a PM and my action be aggregated into an anonymous number worry me? How is the argument different from Google 'scanning your emails'?
Social networks nowadays seem to be competing on ways of justifying bigger numbers on the counters. It makes sense, the bigger the number the bigger the social proof which will attract webmasters. Scanning PM's for shares isn't something I might of thought they would do, but they do and it makes sense. The whole privacy debate surrounding this particular case is a complete non-issue for me though and will probably fade into insignificance just like Google scanning your emails.
An action from a big company that shifts the boundaries of acceptability in privacy would be a justified concern, but in this instance no land here in the privacy war has been lost. Nothings really happened.
- Volpe 14y agoIt's called a 'Private Message'. Seems to be misusing the word private. The gmail analogy is a little off, a closer one would be to compare to gtalk. Do google scan gtalk messages? Also what if the message is "This is so crap: <link>" does that increase the like?
- joeyo 14y ago> The gmail analogy is a little off, a closer one would be > to compare to gtalk. Do google scan gtalk messages? Unless you specifically select "Go off the record" I strongly suspect that they do.
- Groxx 14y agoSince they show up in gmail while you're "on the record", I would assume so.
- tedunangst 14y agoWouldn't Facebook chat be the right comparison for gchat?
- steevdave 14y agoWhile I don't use facebook's messaging except on the extremely rare occasion that someone messages me when I have their web page open, I don't think sharing a URL with someone means I LIKE the content, there are many different reasons to share a URL.
- greggman 14y agoAgreed: Have you see this site (http://sucks.com http://sucks.com) it sucks. (PS: I haven't actually checked out that URL. Might be NSFW) No, I don't want facebook to "Like" links for me if I didn't explicitly say I liked them.
- SimHacker 14y agoI'm disappointed that http://www.suck.com http://www.suck.com hasn't been updated recently... I miss the heady days when it was the most interesting daily updated site on the information superhighway!
- Groxx 14y agoThen is it safe to assume that you disapprove of their like-counter-increasing when you share a link on facebook? It appears they do then too, and you may be sharing it to say "I hate this".
- samstave 14y agoHN Challenge: Make a URL shortener service which allows you to send a link to someone from within facebook - but it blocks all known FB domains and IPs from viewing said URL. It will only take the first click on it then expire. if all the first clicks are from FB - it would mean that FB is pre-emptively scanning and tracking all URL messages - even before users actually visit.
- tedunangst 14y agoWhy would Facebook need to visit your site to record that somebody liked it?
- hrktb 14y ago> When was the last time you heard someone complain about that anymore? No one does, because it doesn't matter. It's not that it doesn't matter. Just that the people for who it mattered just left/never joined gmail and don't have any reason to complain any more. For facebook it's the same. People for who it matters will complain now and you won't hear much complaints after they all leave.
- greggman 14y agoIt's not the same thing. Let's say I'm a republicrat and I'm furiously sending private messages with links to democan sites showing my friends how evil I think they are. Except now I'm told every one of my links as just made those republicrat sites more liked an I'm helping make it look like they are more popular than they really are. Scanning emails to serve you ads does not leak information to the public indirectly. Increasing like counts does.
- magicseth 14y agoIt does actually leak information in the form of ad prices and view rates. Not directly to he public, but it is leaked.
- tedunangst 14y agoLesson learned: stop linking to evil content.
- nancyhua 14y agoWonder if this will exacerbate the effect of everyone only seeing views that agree with theirs and decreasing exposure to different (/evil) perspectives.
- tedunangst 14y agoPersonally I'd be happy with fewer "look at this idiot" links, whether they be on Facebook or HN. If its more of a "something to think about" link, even if I disagree, I think I'm ok if their like count goes up when I share it.
- nancyhua 14y agoIs a "share" a subset of a "like"? Maybe they can have links count as shares but not likes.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- 14y ago
- tomjakubowski 14y ago> Anyone remember the headlines several years ago when "Google 'scans' your emails to serve targetted ads'? When was the last time you heard someone complain about that anymore? No one does, because it doesn't matter. Microsoft begs to differ, at least when trying to sell you Office 365: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbrX5U75dk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbrX5U75dk