4 ms·

"This future is going to happen – and it is too late to debate. However, the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives —

"This future is going to happen – and it is too late to debate. However, the problem is that Facebook is going to use all this data — not to improve our lives — but to target better marketing and advertising messages at us." A little sensationalized? It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Honestly I think most of us can agree Facebook on average is useful service that has improved our lives. So yes it will probably help target us, the product, better to marketing/advertising. As more and more promising services get absorbed or shutdown maybe it'll get clearer and clearer that if you dont want your data to be the product itself then we should start paying for the services we care about.

dsfasfasf 14y ago
>>It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Devil's Advocate: Note everyone in the third reich was evil. p.s. No need to mention Godwin's law. I know about it.
- Noted 14y ago
  Duly noted
rhizome 14y ago
Does creating their own launcher give them any data on non-FB applications used on the phone?
- untog 14y ago
  Not automatically, no. But in theory they could see who you call if they built their own dialer, see who you text if they build their own SMS client (Messenger already does this), etc. etc.
rayiner 14y ago
I don't use the word "evil" pretty much for anybody, but I think the business model is at the very least screwed up. If it's a valuable service, why do they have to be so shady? I'd happily pay facebook $10/month or whatever (I can't imagine they make more than that on ads on me) to use their service. The problem is that they make it seem free, and people just don't understand the extent to which it tracks you. It's the same business model car dealerships use when they try to steer you towards negotiating in terms of monthly payments to avoid your focusing on the bottom line cost--you can get more out of people when you hide the ball about how much your service actually costs them. Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook? There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?
- onedev 14y ago
  Is Google's business model screwed up as well?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Well, to the extent that Google+ is a wannabe Facebook, it can't be any better, right? Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited. And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't. Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
    - onedev 14y ago
      You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV? Certain channels cater to certain type of people so ad buyers would buy ads based on demographics of a certain show (for example, Shark Tank has one of the highest avg income audiences in the country, so it would make sense for Mercedes to advertise when the show airs) . People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech. The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
      - rayiner 14y ago

dsfasfasf 14y ago

>>It's most definitely a strong mix of both sides, not everyone at Facebook is "evil". Devil's Advocate: Note everyone in the third reich was evil. p.s. No need to mention Godwin's law. I know about it.

Noted 14y ago
Duly noted

rhizome 14y ago

Does creating their own launcher give them any data on non-FB applications used on the phone?

untog 14y ago
Not automatically, no. But in theory they could see who you call if they built their own dialer, see who you text if they build their own SMS client (Messenger already does this), etc. etc.

rayiner 14y ago

I don't use the word "evil" pretty much for anybody, but I think the business model is at the very least screwed up. If it's a valuable service, why do they have to be so shady? I'd happily pay facebook $10/month or whatever (I can't imagine they make more than that on ads on me) to use their service. The problem is that they make it seem free, and people just don't understand the extent to which it tracks you. It's the same business model car dealerships use when they try to steer you towards negotiating in terms of monthly payments to avoid your focusing on the bottom line cost--you can get more out of people when you hide the ball about how much your service actually costs them. Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook? There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?

onedev 14y ago
Is Google's business model screwed up as well?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Well, to the extent that Google+ is a wannabe Facebook, it can't be any better, right? Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited. And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't. Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
  - onedev 14y ago
    You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV? Certain channels cater to certain type of people so ad buyers would buy ads based on demographics of a certain show (for example, Shark Tank has one of the highest avg income audiences in the country, so it would make sense for Mercedes to advertise when the show airs) . People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech. The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
    - rayiner 14y ago