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

181–190 of 240 posts

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#181

Post by thanatropism »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #178
thanatropism wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the better side-effects of Trump. We wouldn´t be having this conversation if Hillary or Bernie had used these powerful resources to tilt the odds and get elected. Because almost no one with a platform likes Trump, it gets exposed. If this happened under Obama (like, uh, Assange and Snowden and Manning and massive data centers in Utah happened), it would be completely swept under the rug in favor of a f…

"massive data centers in Utah" was absolutely a Bush Administration thing. If Obama didn't stop it, it was due to the toxic political climate and congressional domination by TeaParty/GOP. The current Democratic Party lineup, and over the past 15 years, has also been shifted pretty far to the right, but that has been a result of the effort by the extreme right since the Clinton presidency; since Newt Gingrich, and Fox…

It was within Obama's reach to break the mold and pardon Snowden. That kind of sticking-his-neck-out could have been era-defining.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#182

Post by castle-bravo »

gt_ wrote: post #135
cyphar wrote: post #94

> 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 (…

“Protest” by way of market choice is such a tired fallacy. It’s really amazing so many HN readers are so ready to take such outdated philosophy to the grave.

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change."

- Mahatma Gandhi

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#184

Post by tjr225 »

popee wrote: post #71
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…

I've never used fb, so it's scary to see comments like this.

Right? As if those of us who haven't used facebook for years are living these inhospitably inconvenient lives? I have friends all over the world and we keep in touch...we don't really need a central platform to do so either. I can honestly say that I could really easily drop any of the platforms that I do use (telegram, snapchat, flickr, hackernews) in an instant and it would probably have such a minimal impact in my life that I could care less. Is it these companies' impetus to trick its users into thinking they can't live without them? I think so.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#185

Post by zerostar07 »

gfodor wrote: post #141

I was one of the co-founders of an early social VR startup and observed first hand the technical capabilities that these applications will afford bad actors to use for surveillance. You can easily capture voice, body tracking, and interaction data, and basically record a full view of the world through the eyes of another human being. It's quite remarkable being able to record and play back a copy of yourself in secon…

why not just support the open source Highfidelity.io platform instead?

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#186

Post by TAForObvReasons »

bambax wrote: post #163
capnrefsmmat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". No. Zeynep Tufekci (the author of the article) has written about this for years, including a book about social media in political movements ( Twitter and Tear Gas ), a popular TED talk ( https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...…

You're right. What upset me though was the conclusion that it's "impossible" to leave Facebook. Everything is possible, including walking instead of driving, not eating meat, etc. Some things are more inconvenient than others, but if convenience trumps everything and you can't accept to make any sacrifice whatsoever then maybe you deserve to be taken advantage of.

I think there are two senses in which it is "impossible" to leave Facebook:

1) Even if you actively decide to deactivate or delete your account, nothing guarantees that Facebook won't retain the data. Nothing guarantees that they don't continue to build a profile of you by scanning photos your friends share. It's a Hotel California of personal data.

2) Even if you personally decide to leave, the rest of society may be using it for passing essential information that forces you to re-engate with facebook. Until you can convince your cohort to stop using FB to organize or converse, you might still be forced to use the service.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#187

Post by Pokepokalypse »

cyphar wrote: post #139
gt_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Protest” by way of market choice is such a tired fallacy. It’s really amazing so many HN readers are so ready to take such outdated philosophy to the grave.

I am in very strongly favour of GDPR and other similar regulations. I just also think that enabling giants like Facebook to abuse you by admitting that you are unable to function without them is a bad strategy. Diversify if you can, and regulate to protect those who cannot. Nobody said you cannot approach something like this on more than one front.

My (individual) approach has been to try to carefully curate my content where it's associated with my Real Name: FB and LinkedIn. LI especially - I think everybody does this.

I am absolutely not the person I portray on FB. Co workers. People I know, they're all pretty aware of this.

It is an extra level of intimacy in my personal relationships that I allow them to know the real me.

Other social networks, where I can use sock puppets - I get out my frustrations by talking about things I would never talk about on FB. In this way, I maximize the usefulness of these tools, and I minimize my usefulness as a tool for them.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#188

Post by deft »

thanatropism wrote: post #125
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…

This is one of the better side-effects of Trump. We wouldn´t be having this conversation if Hillary or Bernie had used these powerful resources to tilt the odds and get elected. Because almost no one with a platform likes Trump, it gets exposed. If this happened under Obama (like, uh, Assange and Snowden and Manning and massive data centers in Utah happened), it would be completely swept under the rug in favor of a f…

So Thiel is playing 5d chess too? How about this: He has shitty political opinions and enough money to put them into action.

Your wishful thinking is just delusional.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#189

Post by telchar »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #169
fortythirteen wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we all just leave Facebook? That may sound attractive but it is not a viable solution. Leaving not just Facebook, but Twitter, Instagram, and all other social media of its ilk is an extremely viable solution. It's like quitting smoking. For the first month or so you feel off-kilter, but, after a while, you can't imagine going back. Life is quantifiably better without it. Realizing that I don't need up to the…

There is a certain amount of second hand smoke in the room, though. 1) I can quit my social media, but people are still creating a lot of content with me in it that is being used. I don't need to take a poll about which potato I am if all the posts my friends tag me in are mined for data. 2) While social media is in itself great for cloistering my own community, it's still the case that vast numbers of my compatriots…

This is OT, but perhaps you could join a structured exercise or sports group, like an ultimate Frisbee team or CrossFit. Having a regular group you can meet up with is usually pretty feasible without Facebook. It's good for you (don't go overboard and hurt yourself) and good for making friends.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#190

Post by Pokepokalypse »

gotofritz wrote: post #99
anonu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Gosh, I miss Uncle Dan's chain emails about how terrible Bill Clinton is. . .
Post reply on HN