31–40 of 60 posts
Is this a problem? Who stays logged into Facebook? My browser does an auto fill for my user name and password, I login for 10 minutes to see postings from my brother, grandson, neices, etc. and then logoff. Never occurred to me to stay logged into FB. In the same way, I like to use a separate web browser for just using Google and twitter. Small easy steps for maintaining a modicum of privacy.
I do have a Facebook account, primarily because I am studying abroad and I need to keep in touch with my family and close friends and Facebook is, thus far, the best way to share what is going on in my life. It kind of allow me to "broadcast" my life events. Now, I really dislike what I just read. I wonder if tech companies have a moral obligation to disclose to the user what are the terms of the contracts. While ToS…
I do have a Facebook account, primarily because I am studying abroad and I need to keep in touch with my family and close friends and Facebook is, thus far, the best way to share what is going on in my life. It kind of allow me to "broadcast" my life events. Now, I really dislike what I just read. I wonder if tech companies have a moral obligation to disclose to the user what are the terms of the contracts. While ToS…
Probably I've been on the internet for too long.
Is this a problem? Who stays logged into Facebook? My browser does an auto fill for my user name and password, I login for 10 minutes to see postings from my brother, grandson, neices, etc. and then logoff. Never occurred to me to stay logged into FB. In the same way, I like to use a separate web browser for just using Google and twitter. Small easy steps for maintaining a modicum of privacy.
Who stays logged into Facebook? That isn't relevant. There are login cookies and there are tracking cookies. Unless one arranges for the tracking cookies to be deleted regularly, one will be tracked even if not logged in.
So,,, at what point does this become accepted (as opposed to tolerated) business practice? Or, more optimistic, no longer tolerated. At one point it was ok to say, "This is all new and still being worked out." But, it is no longer new. It is very worked out. Entire sectors of the economy (and legal system) are devoted to knowing more about consumers then they sometimes know about themselves. The entire industry is be…
"If a business model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail." (last line of the article) Since the invisible hand of the free internet appears to be arthritic, a more visible hand (fist?) is necessary. And we have it in the way of request blockers such as uBlock Origin, wich can compleltely block Facebook's and Google's tracking in their tracks. As more and more people turn to subversive solutions…
Why are alleged "services" provided for "free"?
One group will tell you it's because advertisers are picking up the costs for "content". Another group will tell you that it's because no user (cf. advertiser) would pay if a "fee" were charged to use the www.
Of course, no "free" business model will dare test the theory of the later group, so I guess we'll never know how the user values these "services". Instead the investors and advertisers set the value. Grossly inflated.
In the early days of the internet as I remember it the real (non-hardware) costs for the internet were tolls on telephone calls (dial-up). Organizations picked up the tab for employees who used the internetwork. Tuition-paying students also got access.
Then came UUnet and "ISP's". And then people had their own personal computer, at home, with a network card.
As far as I'm concerned, the internet connection fee is still the only real cost.
I think the browser you allude to is possible. But I think some changes in thinking in how information is structured and presented on the www is needed. If we let the www be shaped solely by web developers with a lust for layers of abstraction and increased complexity and being given carte blanche to run code on others' computers, then it forces the "browser" to be something that is far too complex and too much trouble for any open source volunteer programmer to deal with.
Make the www easier to parse and then the www "browser" becomes easier to replicate. This is only my opinion. Others would certainly disagree.
Is this a problem? Who stays logged into Facebook? My browser does an auto fill for my user name and password, I login for 10 minutes to see postings from my brother, grandson, neices, etc. and then logoff. Never occurred to me to stay logged into FB. In the same way, I like to use a separate web browser for just using Google and twitter. Small easy steps for maintaining a modicum of privacy.
It's a huge UI problem, but browsers should probably default to the behavior that you are leaning over to one side and hopping on one foot to get. Then you need a UI for selectively turning on sharing of information between sites. The advanced mode in uBlock is a big step forward for users that want to bother with it, but I'm not sure it is even solvable for users that don't want to bother.
Stalkers gonna stalk, makers gonna make, founders gonna found. We nerds always knew that the Facebook, Google, etc. images were tracking beacons, and their business model was, to paraphrase Eric Schmidt, to get as close as possible to the creepy line. Fortunately, it is/was easy to opt out by DNS-blocking a few hosts. If this behavior becomes common, back-end data sharing and syncing will become the norm, and somethi…
Great stuff.
Blog posts are just too boring most of the time. We need more direct quotes from the people toeing the creepy line.
That is the behavior that should be tracked. What do you think these "engineers, designers and policy makers" get up to each day? Maybe lots of "pretending to believe" they are doing something meaningful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If a business model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail." (last line of the article) Since the invisible hand of the free internet appears to be arthritic, a more visible hand (fist?) is necessary. And we have it in the way of request blockers such as uBlock Origin, wich can compleltely block Facebook's and Google's tracking in their tracks. As more and more people turn to subversive solutions…
The last line from the article you quote is spot on. Why are alleged "services" provided for "free"? One group will tell you it's because advertisers are picking up the costs for "content". Another group will tell you that it's because no user (cf. advertiser) would pay if a "fee" were charged to use the www. Of course, no "free" business model will dare test the theory of the later group, so I guess we'll never know…
And yes, my username is a reference to Star Trek, a show which is probably too socialist for the heavily anarcho-capitalist-leaning libertarian crowd here on HN (See the link in my reply to username223).
I'm working on setting up a website where we can raise awareness, change hearts and minds, and support efforts that help us retake the internet. I cannot do it alone, even with my evil goatee. Email me if you'd like to help.
So,,, at what point does this become accepted (as opposed to tolerated) business practice? Or, more optimistic, no longer tolerated. At one point it was ok to say, "This is all new and still being worked out." But, it is no longer new. It is very worked out. Entire sectors of the economy (and legal system) are devoted to knowing more about consumers then they sometimes know about themselves. The entire industry is be…
How else would you know what to fix?