Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 240 posts

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#91

Post by prepend »

rovek wrote: post #52
wepple wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there was any exploit. My understanding is that a third-party app asked for access, and people gave consent, and CA mined data. I’m the last person you’d see defending FB, but this just seems like the same thing everyone has been doing on FB as a platform since FarmVille launched years ago?

A major part of Facebook's culpability here is that they knew for 2 years that tens of millions of their users were being profiled as part of a political propaganda war on their platform and their response was practically nothing. Edit: FB also knew the data was collected under an academic license and was being processed, outside that license, for financial gain.

Is political propaganda against their TOS? I don’t like it, but I don’t like all the other propaganda (re “ads”).

I don’t see how this is worse than a targeted ad trying to get me to invest with Schwab. Also a pretty coordinated campaign. Or just Doubleclick in general.

This comes down to people wanting to limit some ads. There are already laws for political ads. Should we change them? I think they currently apply to Facebook ads.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#92

Post by ionised »

hellofunk wrote: post #31

I wish quite badly that the benefit of deactivating FB would outweigh the inconvenience, but FB has become such a mainstay that I'd lose touch with lots of people I really have no other way of contacting. I could say "good riddance," if there is no other way to contact them then perhaps they are not important enough to my life, but that's just not true. Or what about all the local forums (FB groups) in my city that h…

It seems like a big problem until you just do it, and then you realise you didn't need it anywhere near as much as you think.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#93

Post by therealmarv »

Close a FB account is no option... ever lived in a country where FB is essential? It's maybe not USA or many bigger Europe countries but if you go to smaller countries (where Google Maps is even bad) you will loose a lot (groups, buying/selling, advices).

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#94

Post by cyphar »

> Should we all just leave Facebook? That may sound attractive but it is not a viable solution.

It's the only sane response, and has been the only sane response, for the past decade. The only counter-argument given by NYT is that in some countries Facebook has a stranglehold. I don't see how that's relevant to people who don't live in those countries. As for organisers of political groups exclusively using Facebook (which is just a terrifying idea for a number of reasons), just pull a Stallman and email them explaining the problem with Facebook and ask if there's another way of staying abreast of the group. You can't fix the problem if you don't even try.

By not exercising your ability to protest against systemic and deep-seated abuse of user privacy, you're just making the world worse for the people who don't have that option currently (because it just tightens their stranglehold).

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#95

Post by harryf »

bambax wrote: post #66

> Facebook makes money, in other words, by profiling us and then selling our attention to advertisers, political actors and others. These are Facebook’s true customers, whom it works hard to please. And you just figured this out now? This is like saying "wow, who knew we would get so fat by feeding only on pizza, hamburgers and coke, aren't those companies evil". Well, yes, companies are evil. They don't work for you…

> Of course it is. It's the only solution.

One viable alternative is legislation, such as the EU has been doing to some effect. Of course the laws lag the technology by some years and we have a wide range of political views on things like "the right to be forgotten" but more consumer protections seem to be needed, perhaps also factoring in "dumb" consumer behaviour e.g. not reading Terms & Conditions.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#96

Post by Jyaif »

therealmarv wrote: post #93

Close a FB account is no option... ever lived in a country where FB is essential? It's maybe not USA or many bigger Europe countries but if you go to smaller countries (where Google Maps is even bad) you will loose a lot (groups, buying/selling, advices).

You are repeating what is in the article.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#97

Post by braythwayt »

bambax wrote: post #66

> Facebook makes money, in other words, by profiling us and then selling our attention to advertisers, political actors and others. These are Facebook’s true customers, whom it works hard to please. And you just figured this out now? This is like saying "wow, who knew we would get so fat by feeding only on pizza, hamburgers and coke, aren't those companies evil". Well, yes, companies are evil. They don't work for you…

Look, my parents were interested in environmental issues like pollution in the 1960s. They demonstrated against racism.

These are not new issues.

But still, if somebody writes an essay saying that we are polluting the earth and that racism is a pervasive, structural force woven into the very fabric of our society, let's support them.

Sure, they're only now realizing what some or perhaps many people have known for literally half a century, but every person coming to that realization is another element of resistence against malevolence.

No, it's not a stunning revelation for you or I that FB is a digital cancer. But yet... Every voice saying this is a lamp, regardless of how late it came to light.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#98

Post by JustSomeNobody »

hellofunk wrote: post #31

I wish quite badly that the benefit of deactivating FB would outweigh the inconvenience, but FB has become such a mainstay that I'd lose touch with lots of people I really have no other way of contacting. I could say "good riddance," if there is no other way to contact them then perhaps they are not important enough to my life, but that's just not true. Or what about all the local forums (FB groups) in my city that h…

Are you unable to ask those people for alternative contact information?

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#99

Post by gotofritz »

anonu wrote: post #85
hellofunk wrote: post #31

I wish quite badly that the benefit of deactivating FB would outweigh the inconvenience, but FB has become such a mainstay that I'd lose touch with lots of people I really have no other way of contacting. I could say "good riddance," if there is no other way to contact them then perhaps they are not important enough to my life, but that's just not true. Or what about all the local forums (FB groups) in my city that h…

What happened to good ol' emails? Serious question... Can't you organize amongst friends with emails? I hate to suggest Slack as well... But there are alternatives is the point... What about Meetup.com for bigger groups?

How old are you? I am asking because I remember full well the pre-facebook days when people would send around 'funny videos' to groups of friends, with no chance of opting out, getting your email address shared with people you don't know, filling your inbox with crap, etc... Something like FB is hundreds times more convenient

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#100

Post by braythwayt »

harryf wrote: post #95
bambax wrote: post #66

> Facebook makes money, in other words, by profiling us and then selling our attention to advertisers, political actors and others. These are Facebook’s true customers, whom it works hard to please. And you just figured this out now? This is like saying "wow, who knew we would get so fat by feeding only on pizza, hamburgers and coke, aren't those companies evil". Well, yes, companies are evil. They don't work for you…

> Of course it is. It's the only solution. One viable alternative is legislation, such as the EU has been doing to some effect. Of course the laws lag the technology by some years and we have a wide range of political views on things like "the right to be forgotten" but more consumer protections seem to be needed, perhaps also factoring in "dumb" consumer behaviour e.g. not reading Terms & Conditions.

+1

Some things are impossible to solve by independant actors. Imagine trying to boycott cars in the 1940s because they were manifestly unsafe, or in the 1950s because they polluted the world with lead.

Only legislation changed these things... albeit not enough. Same for workplace safety, child labour, and so on.

Some systemic problems require systemic solutions.

Post reply on HN