6 ms·

The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". It is a business e

by yuvadam 13y ago

The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". It is a business entity - always has been - and does not give half a damn about "making the world a better place", or whatever corporate marketing catchphrase they use right now. Related to recent events or not, the privatized internet is continuing to backlash with severe consequences for anyone dependent on Tor to ensure that their tyrant government doesn't come knocking on their door just for speaking their mind.

hammerzeit 13y ago
Can you elaborate on a few of your claims here? First, you seem to imply that a privately-owned public space is a bad thing. What alternatives do you envision? Wouldn't a space regulated and controlled by governmental entities or NGOs be just as liable to abuse? Second, when you speak about "Facebook," what do you mean? Do you mean that the people who work there don't care about helping people connecting there? That Mark Zuckerberg personally doesn't care? Or that the corporate entity of Facebook has some sort of conscious will of its own separate from the will of its employees? Third, you seem to imply there's an obvious reason why Facebook blocked TOR that furthers their business interests. Can you elaborate on what that is?
- extra88 13y ago
  The alternative is a federated model where you can one of many platform providers (or set up your own) and they can all "talk" to each other to create a "space" which is owned by no single entity. An open standard, defined by many participants, creates the "space." This is the way email works. It's the way XMPP works for messaging (and which has been stabbed in the back by Google by dropping their support of it in crucial ways). The Diaspora Project has the same concept for social networking in a Facebook-ish way. I didn't RTFA but use of Tor can impair Facebook's tracking of people, thus making the data about people less valuable commodities to sell to their advertisers. Using Tor may also increase Facebook's network usage a bit by making less use of cached data, locally and remotely.
patrickaljord 13y ago
> Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". Why not? Facebook does help billions of people connect better. Yes, it is a business entity and what's wrong with that? Does this make it inherently evil? Do non business entity do a better job at "making the world a better place"? Look at the latest NSA scandal to get an idea. At least we're not forced to pay Facebook with our tax money like we do with the NSA. But sure, business are the devil. Oh, and to stay on topic, if you want to be mad at something, be mad at those dictators forcing people to use TOR, not Facebook. TOR is also a great tools for spammers and Facebook has to fight spam too if it wants to survive as a business.
- yuvadam 13y ago
  Throwing millions of legitimate users, who require Tor for their safety, under the bus is evil, yes. Facebook has plenty of ways to fight spam besides blacklisting Tor exit node IPs, exactly as it has done up until now.
  - unreal37 13y ago
    "Millions" of people use Tor? You can make an argument for anonymity without resorting to hyperbole.
    - rpedroso 13y ago
      "Using free software, Tor has enabled roughly 36 million people around the world to experience freedom of access and expression on the Internet while keeping them in control of their privacy and anonymity." http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-free-software-awards-announced http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-free-software-awards-announced
      - patrickaljord 13y ago
        The fsf is against the use of Facebook, so quoting them on using Tor to access Facebook is kind of funny. Plus, I doubt those 36 million people are all activists. Actually, the article itself says thousands, not millions.
adventured 13y ago
It's a lot more than just a business entity, unfortunately. The government tends to look out for and protect its biggest corporate partners, particularly those that play a strategic role (think: Boeing). The major Internet services companies are now protected government sponsored entities, just like Verizon and AT&T. The Feds can never risk the potential that the massive orgy of data that Facebook makes possible - both domestically and globally - might unravel or be challenged by competitors that might threaten the 'total information awareness' system they've built. I would argue Facebook's well being is now considered a national security interest for the US Government, as there are few other sources that provide easy access to the lives of a billion people around the world. I wish Facebook were merely a business.
- paganel 13y ago
  > just like Verizon and AT&T. As an European I never understood what is the "strategic" interest of Washington to protect the telecom companies. This might have made sense 20 years ago, but now that these companies tend to become like any other utility companies I don't see why the Government would care if they break up or if new (possibly foreign) competitors appear.
  - yashkadakia 13y ago
    Um... https://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+Snowden https://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+Snowden
  - extra88 13y ago
    Because I think yashkadakia's Google link was too oblique a response, here's my answer: the concerns are that A) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might refuse to provide the data NSA or other government agencies want (or reveal that they had been asked) and B) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might do the same sort of spying on behalf of their "home" country.
    - adventured 13y ago
      To add to this, the value of the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon, is also the ease of having two targets that make up the extreme majority of all telephone calls / wireless data / and a lot of broadband access. If you're the government and you want to spy on domestic calls and data, it sure beats having to deal with a market in which dozens of companies split the marketshare. This last point is also one of the reasons why the former telecom monopoly of the old AT&T was allowed to be recombined after having been split into pieces.
score 13y ago
Google and Facebook are part of the military surveillance complex, it's as simple as that. They are privatized surveillance companies who serve the US government. It should be considered enemy soil for anyone who believes in privacy and freedom.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  This is ridiculous. They're not part of a conspiracy. They're businesses that sometimes have a strategic advantage for the government, for which the government requires a legal precedent to access. That is all. Stop with the dramatic hyperbole.
  - halfcat 13y ago
    The coverup continues...
PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
>The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. An anarchist collective wrote something you may find interesting on this subject, "The Internet as New Enclosure Digitized Capitalism, the Attention Economy, and the Surveillance State"[1] although I doubt the author(s) would agree that any enclosure of public space is "inevitable" as you put it. [1] http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/enclosure.php http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/enclosure.php
diminoten 13y ago
You either get a free and open Internet where a company like Facebook is free to open and close its doors as it pleases, or you get a regulated and governed Internet where you're granted access with an ID that ties all of your activity back to you. I for one am immensely proud to be part of the civilization that created the free and open Internet, and will fight tooth and nail to keep such an option available to people.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by yuvadam 13y ago

hammerzeit 13y ago

Can you elaborate on a few of your claims here? First, you seem to imply that a privately-owned public space is a bad thing. What alternatives do you envision? Wouldn't a space regulated and controlled by governmental entities or NGOs be just as liable to abuse? Second, when you speak about "Facebook," what do you mean? Do you mean that the people who work there don't care about helping people connecting there? That Mark Zuckerberg personally doesn't care? Or that the corporate entity of Facebook has some sort of conscious will of its own separate from the will of its employees? Third, you seem to imply there's an obvious reason why Facebook blocked TOR that furthers their business interests. Can you elaborate on what that is?

extra88 13y ago
The alternative is a federated model where you can one of many platform providers (or set up your own) and they can all "talk" to each other to create a "space" which is owned by no single entity. An open standard, defined by many participants, creates the "space." This is the way email works. It's the way XMPP works for messaging (and which has been stabbed in the back by Google by dropping their support of it in crucial ways). The Diaspora Project has the same concept for social networking in a Facebook-ish way. I didn't RTFA but use of Tor can impair Facebook's tracking of people, thus making the data about people less valuable commodities to sell to their advertisers. Using Tor may also increase Facebook's network usage a bit by making less use of cached data, locally and remotely.

patrickaljord 13y ago

> Facebook can no longer stake any preposterous claim to "help people connect better". Why not? Facebook does help billions of people connect better. Yes, it is a business entity and what's wrong with that? Does this make it inherently evil? Do non business entity do a better job at "making the world a better place"? Look at the latest NSA scandal to get an idea. At least we're not forced to pay Facebook with our tax money like we do with the NSA. But sure, business are the devil. Oh, and to stay on topic, if you want to be mad at something, be mad at those dictators forcing people to use TOR, not Facebook. TOR is also a great tools for spammers and Facebook has to fight spam too if it wants to survive as a business.

yuvadam 13y ago
Throwing millions of legitimate users, who require Tor for their safety, under the bus is evil, yes. Facebook has plenty of ways to fight spam besides blacklisting Tor exit node IPs, exactly as it has done up until now.
- unreal37 13y ago
  "Millions" of people use Tor? You can make an argument for anonymity without resorting to hyperbole.
  - rpedroso 13y ago
    "Using free software, Tor has enabled roughly 36 million people around the world to experience freedom of access and expression on the Internet while keeping them in control of their privacy and anonymity." http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-free-software-awards-announced http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-free-software-awards-announced
    - patrickaljord 13y ago
      The fsf is against the use of Facebook, so quoting them on using Tor to access Facebook is kind of funny. Plus, I doubt those 36 million people are all activists. Actually, the article itself says thousands, not millions.

adventured 13y ago

It's a lot more than just a business entity, unfortunately. The government tends to look out for and protect its biggest corporate partners, particularly those that play a strategic role (think: Boeing). The major Internet services companies are now protected government sponsored entities, just like Verizon and AT&T. The Feds can never risk the potential that the massive orgy of data that Facebook makes possible - both domestically and globally - might unravel or be challenged by competitors that might threaten the 'total information awareness' system they've built. I would argue Facebook's well being is now considered a national security interest for the US Government, as there are few other sources that provide easy access to the lives of a billion people around the world. I wish Facebook were merely a business.

paganel 13y ago
> just like Verizon and AT&T. As an European I never understood what is the "strategic" interest of Washington to protect the telecom companies. This might have made sense 20 years ago, but now that these companies tend to become like any other utility companies I don't see why the Government would care if they break up or if new (possibly foreign) competitors appear.
- yashkadakia 13y ago
  Um... https://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+Snowden https://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+Snowden
- extra88 13y ago
  Because I think yashkadakia's Google link was too oblique a response, here's my answer: the concerns are that A) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might refuse to provide the data NSA or other government agencies want (or reveal that they had been asked) and B) a foreign owned U.S. telecom might do the same sort of spying on behalf of their "home" country.
  - adventured 13y ago
    To add to this, the value of the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon, is also the ease of having two targets that make up the extreme majority of all telephone calls / wireless data / and a lot of broadband access. If you're the government and you want to spy on domestic calls and data, it sure beats having to deal with a market in which dozens of companies split the marketshare. This last point is also one of the reasons why the former telecom monopoly of the old AT&T was allowed to be recombined after having been split into pieces.

score 13y ago

Google and Facebook are part of the military surveillance complex, it's as simple as that. They are privatized surveillance companies who serve the US government. It should be considered enemy soil for anyone who believes in privacy and freedom.

dylangs1030 13y ago
This is ridiculous. They're not part of a conspiracy. They're businesses that sometimes have a strategic advantage for the government, for which the government requires a legal precedent to access. That is all. Stop with the dramatic hyperbole.
- halfcat 13y ago
  The coverup continues...

PilateDeGuerre 13y ago

>The privatized 'public' space makes an inevitable move. An anarchist collective wrote something you may find interesting on this subject, "The Internet as New Enclosure Digitized Capitalism, the Attention Economy, and the Surveillance State"[1] although I doubt the author(s) would agree that any enclosure of public space is "inevitable" as you put it. [1] http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/enclosure.php http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/enclosure.php

diminoten 13y ago

You either get a free and open Internet where a company like Facebook is free to open and close its doors as it pleases, or you get a regulated and governed Internet where you're granted access with an ID that ties all of your activity back to you. I for one am immensely proud to be part of the civilization that created the free and open Internet, and will fight tooth and nail to keep such an option available to people.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]