4 ms·
Have you done A/B tests to see if consumers prefer Facebook with or without privacy? No? What? Oh, you can't? Neither can consumers. Most consumers are very a
by Nevermark 7mo ago
Have you done A/B tests to see if consumers prefer Facebook with or without privacy?
No? What? Oh, you can't?
Neither can consumers. Most consumers are very aware of the lack of privacy, the manipulation, and have very cynical feelings about Facebook and similar companies. But it's where their friends and family are.
For most people the web is a mine field maze where basic things they want are compromised everywhere. And they are routinely creeped out by ads that reveal they know them far too personally.
You are mistaking network capture for preference.
Another telling example. Lots of privacy valuing technical people, who would never have a Facebook account, send unencrypted text emails.
It is network capture, not preference.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoConsumers pro actively tell Facebook their age, sexual preference, race, relationship status, likes and dislikes, they check in to where they are and who they are there with… They are choosing to give Facebook info.
- Nevermark 7mo ago> They are choosing to give Facebook info. Yes, they do. That's is exactly the phenomena my comment addressed. But the way you wrote that implies an improbable motivation or choice framing. Perhaps their real motive/choice is to share with other people on the site. It is called a network effect. If (1) Facebook had been the surveillance/manipulation capital of the world from inception, (2) an equally inviting privacy protecting site took off at the same time, and (3) everyone chose Facebook over E2EE anyway, then sure, we could throw up our hands! Those silly users! The term I have for when people discuss choices involving many-dimensional criteria, as if the choice involved just one or two selected dimensions, is "dimension blindness". It happens in a lot of heated discussions about phone choices too.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoWouldn’t the most obvious way for people to protect their privacy while using FB if they cared and still wanted to use FB be not to proactively give them information? You don’t have to share everything I mentioned just to be involved in a group.
- Nevermark 7mo ago> You don’t have to share everything I mentioned just to be involved in a group. This is clearly true. There is an implied point here but I am not sure what. They share in their profile what they want other people to see. And often choose to not fill out everything. Nobody signs up to share with Meta, Inc. Most people would love a "[ ] Do not share with Facebook". People choosing an imperfect option, from imperfect options, are not demonstrating evidence they don't care about the imperfections.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoThey are explicitly adding their information to FB why do they need a button to not share the information? Would the button disable them from checking in and updating their profile?
- Nevermark 7mo agoAn E2EE system (e.g. as offered by Apple iCloud). Or a terms of service guarantee. (e.g. Dropbox, Anthropic and 1000 other companies that partition sharable user content from non-support divisions.) > Would the button disable them from checking in and updating their profile? No.
- raw_anon_1111 7mo agoWhen you post a check in, your relationship status, your pictures without setting your sharing preferences and update your profile - you are specifically doing with the intention to share. WhatsApp is E2E encrypted
- Nevermark 7mo agoI already gave you a storage/share E2EE example. I suggest that when things keep going over your head, like they did here, just Google the topic. And when people are kind enough to reply to your confusion, read with a little more care.