6 ms·

We work with technology and love to see cool new things developed and released in the world, but like anything, it can be used for evil too. There shouldn't be

We work with technology and love to see cool new things developed and released in the world, but like anything, it can be used for evil too. There shouldn't be any cognitive dissonance and it's good that you're cognizant of the possible downsides. I wish more people would think of the possible negatives before they lay finger to keyboard and start coding. What can you do? Keep talking about it; don't give up. Most people have to be exposed to an idea many, many times, and also see social proof (i.e. their peers accepting the idea too) before they will accept it. This is why we as entrepreneurs love early adopters because they give us the social proof we need to pull new, less adventurous customers on board. What else can you do? Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose.

novum 13y ago
I admire your positivity. However, is it not the case that this: Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose. ...has been disproved by facebook? They are (one of the larger) privacy destroyers. They are not -- at present -- losing.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Facebook made MySpace lose. MySpace made Friendster lose. Facebook isn't invincible, it's just that nobody has created the next Facebook. People are growing tired of Facebook and it's becoming passe. People are leaving and new generations are failing to sign up because it's not longer cool. Teenagers give a shit about Tumblr, Instagram, and Twitter, and less about Facebook. A growing number of people are getting tired of it and becoming less active or leaving. It's becoming cool to deactivate your Facebook account, and that's the most hazardous thing to Facebook's longevity. All brands die. Facebook isn't immune from this law.
  - novum 13y ago
    You are correct. Facebook was not the first social network and they will not be the last. I guess I'm more concerned about the precedent they've set, in terms of (mis)handling user data, and how other companies seem to be falling over themselves to add 'social' features. Very few companies begin with a commitment to user privacy. My fear is that FB has done some kind of irreversible damage, even if only as measured in terms of the attitudes other companies are adopting towards privacy.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      I see your point, but I disagree. There will always be those that just don't give a shit, but I get the feeling that people generally are better educated about privacy and the consequences of freely giving up information online. People not respecting their own privacy is a marketing problem. Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. It used to be cool to smoke too, after all.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. There is no profit in this, and the government makes facebook privacy-encroaching look trivial, so looking to them to regulate it is a non-starter.
        kintamanimatt 13y ago
        I disagree that there's no profit potential in it a privacy-focused social network, but a lack of profit potential doesn't mean a social movement is doomed. The anti-smoking campaign wasn't designed to fatten a bottom line, it was designed to create a positive social change, and it worked.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        I think anti-smoking was done to fatten a bottom line. It was largely a money grab by the states, and state/federal/tobacco money continually poured into anti-smoking organizations. The reason why nobody cares anymore is because the money dried up (lawsuits ended, settlements happened), and now tobacco companies themselves are using the laws to keep smaller/foreign competitors and safer alternatives (such as Swedish snus) off the market. Now that there's no money to be had, anti-smoking initiatives are going nowhere. edit: luckily, this money grab contributed to improving the health of the public - but it was still a money grab.
        kintamanimatt 13y ago
otakucode 13y ago
While your recommendations are great - keep talking about it and DON'T CODE BAD SHIT (if you do, no matter if you think its just to feed your kids or whatever, you're a bad person).... there's more we can do. The NSA and their ilk think they can take the knowledge of CS, and other aspects of information science, and use it against us. But what is preventing us from defending ourselves with that same knowledge? Surely there's enough public information out there to, say, build a system which uses the public news stories and communications from politicians previously busted for adultery to train a machine learning system that will also monitor contemporary news stories and communications and let anyone check their politicians "aduletery score" to see what % likelihood there is that they're a cheat (according to the system, of course). There are many projects like that which could be done that would help the public, and the politicians, understand why the things the NSA wants to do are radically dangerous and must be stopped.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Creating no-cloud solutions that are heavy on good encryption is probably the best bet to secure the world's privacy and defeat global surveillance!
- quantumpotato_ 13y ago
  Personally, I don't give a shit about a politican adultering. How did they vote when it came to my rights?
  - krichman 13y ago
    Yes I'd rather have a politician who regularly attended brothels than voted for SOPA. Raising alarm over OMG sex is a great way for media to control the dialog away from actual issues.

novum 13y ago

I admire your positivity. However, is it not the case that this: Don't code bad shit and compete against those that do. Make the privacy destroyers lose. ...has been disproved by facebook? They are (one of the larger) privacy destroyers. They are not -- at present -- losing.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
Facebook made MySpace lose. MySpace made Friendster lose. Facebook isn't invincible, it's just that nobody has created the next Facebook. People are growing tired of Facebook and it's becoming passe. People are leaving and new generations are failing to sign up because it's not longer cool. Teenagers give a shit about Tumblr, Instagram, and Twitter, and less about Facebook. A growing number of people are getting tired of it and becoming less active or leaving. It's becoming cool to deactivate your Facebook account, and that's the most hazardous thing to Facebook's longevity. All brands die. Facebook isn't immune from this law.
- novum 13y ago
  You are correct. Facebook was not the first social network and they will not be the last. I guess I'm more concerned about the precedent they've set, in terms of (mis)handling user data, and how other companies seem to be falling over themselves to add 'social' features. Very few companies begin with a commitment to user privacy. My fear is that FB has done some kind of irreversible damage, even if only as measured in terms of the attitudes other companies are adopting towards privacy.
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    I see your point, but I disagree. There will always be those that just don't give a shit, but I get the feeling that people generally are better educated about privacy and the consequences of freely giving up information online. People not respecting their own privacy is a marketing problem. Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. It used to be cool to smoke too, after all.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. There is no profit in this, and the government makes facebook privacy-encroaching look trivial, so looking to them to regulate it is a non-starter.
      - kintamanimatt 13y ago
        I disagree that there's no profit potential in it a privacy-focused social network, but a lack of profit potential doesn't mean a social movement is doomed. The anti-smoking campaign wasn't designed to fatten a bottom line, it was designed to create a positive social change, and it worked.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        I think anti-smoking was done to fatten a bottom line. It was largely a money grab by the states, and state/federal/tobacco money continually poured into anti-smoking organizations. The reason why nobody cares anymore is because the money dried up (lawsuits ended, settlements happened), and now tobacco companies themselves are using the laws to keep smaller/foreign competitors and safer alternatives (such as Swedish snus) off the market. Now that there's no money to be had, anti-smoking initiatives are going nowhere. edit: luckily, this money grab contributed to improving the health of the public - but it was still a money grab.
        kintamanimatt 13y ago

otakucode 13y ago

While your recommendations are great - keep talking about it and DON'T CODE BAD SHIT (if you do, no matter if you think its just to feed your kids or whatever, you're a bad person).... there's more we can do. The NSA and their ilk think they can take the knowledge of CS, and other aspects of information science, and use it against us. But what is preventing us from defending ourselves with that same knowledge? Surely there's enough public information out there to, say, build a system which uses the public news stories and communications from politicians previously busted for adultery to train a machine learning system that will also monitor contemporary news stories and communications and let anyone check their politicians "aduletery score" to see what % likelihood there is that they're a cheat (according to the system, of course). There are many projects like that which could be done that would help the public, and the politicians, understand why the things the NSA wants to do are radically dangerous and must be stopped.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
Creating no-cloud solutions that are heavy on good encryption is probably the best bet to secure the world's privacy and defeat global surveillance!
quantumpotato_ 13y ago
Personally, I don't give a shit about a politican adultering. How did they vote when it came to my rights?
- krichman 13y ago
  Yes I'd rather have a politician who regularly attended brothels than voted for SOPA. Raising alarm over OMG sex is a great way for media to control the dialog away from actual issues.