8 ms·
"[...] we are the product used to keep the machine running and make some people a healthy profit in the process. That is the nature of business." Making a prof
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
"[...] we are the product used to keep the machine running and make some people a healthy profit in the process. That is the nature of business."
Making a profit is the nature of business. Requiring payment in giving up privacy and control over your perception as the only options is not, and being a monopoly also is not.
"They all failed or will fail since the point of the 'party' is having everybody attend and attend all at once."
That is exactly why facebook must be faught, the name economics has for this is "network externality"[1] - the monopolization of a dominant communication system by one entity has a cost for those who don't participate, which is not acceptable.
Also, you might want to consider that "having everybody attend and attend all at once" technically does not require a monopoly. The telephone network, for example, is also one telephone network where every participant can call every other participant, but still, there are multiple telcos offering access to the network, competing with one another. Something similar is true for most traditional internet services, and the internet itself. Every machine on the internet can send packets to every other machine on the internet, but there are plenty of providers to choose from. You can send email from every email account to every other, but there are plenty of email providers, and it's relatively easy to open your own. Every website hosted anywhere can be read by anyone, not matter which provider they connect through ... all of those technologies allow you access through one single telephone, email client, and web browser, but there is no single entity that controls all of it, and that is vital in order to avoid an unhealthy concentration of power that in the end is likely to affect not just those who choose to use facebook, but all of society.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
- runeks 12y ago> That is exactly why facebook must be faught [...] Why the war talk? Can't people who are willing to accept Facebook's terms just use it, while those who are unwilling refrain from using Facebook?
- learnstats2 12y agoOK. I'm not willing to accept Facebook's terms. Now, what should I do about my friends posting my photo and personal details such that Facebook creates a shadow profile of me without my permission?
- zo1 12y agoTell your friends that you are not willing to accept their terms of friendship. On multiple occasions I've asked my friends/acquaintances to not post a specific photo that I'm in, and they've stuck to it. They might still keep it, as a keepsake, but it's not publicly available. If I wanted to go any further than that, I'd have to ask myself the extreme question of... "Why go out in public at all" due to all the times I'd have my face or actions tracked.
- bsilvereagle 12y agoUnfortunately, it's not as simple as not uploading a single photograph. If Facebook has scraped your friend's (or grandma's) contact lists, the shadow profile has been created, and the friend tracking has begun.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y agoYes, that is the kind of question that dissidents in societies that work(ed) like facebook do/did ask themselves.
- strathmeyer 12y agoWhen someone does something that prevents you from going outside, society generally makes that illegal. You might find that some of us are not all-powerful enough to make people do things simply by threatening to no longer be their friend.
- zo1 12y agoWell, you need to look at it a little more objectively: It "prevents" the individual from going outside because that individual has precluded the idea of going outside due to the possibility of being tracked/photographed. I.e. Nothing about being tracked/photographed "prevents" an individual from going outside. But that, combined with an individual that fears/hates/morally_objects_to such a thing, makes it so that that individual is compelled to not go outside, lest they be forced to subject themselves to the thing they object to. Additionally, it's not about "making people do things", and being not powerful enough to do so. That's quite an imposing/forceful line of thinking. It's about "thing X bothers me, what peaceful non-violent actions can I do to avoid X affecting me (negatively?)." And yes, making a regulation against X and forcing people to submit to it through the threat of imprisonment is quite violent.
- ObviousScience 12y agoTo be fair, Facebook hires psychologists to basically get you addicted to Facebook and hides (as much as it can) the nature of its practices from its merchandise.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y agoMaybe if it were simple as that, the 'war talk' would be avoided. However, as the article explains, facebook tracks people who don't even sign up to its terms.
- scholia 12y agoWhich is normal on today's web, which as Bruce Schneier says, is a surveillance-based economy....
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y agoMaybe you should have read the rest of the sentence before deleting it? I'll reproduce it here for your benefit: "[...], the name economics has for this is "network externality"[1] - the monopolization of a dominant communication system by one entity has a cost for those who don't participate, which is not acceptable."
- harel 12y agoThe telephone network is interconnected. I can call anyone from any network to any network provider. Facebook is not. If I want to see my friends on Facebook I have to use Facebook. When there is a social network that aggregates all other social networks then it would be like the phone network.
- Swannie 12y agoThat was exactly the point.