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

Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#341

Post by laythea »

jjuel wrote: post #272
cyberferret wrote: post #13

The question is - will this be just a minor blip to Facebook and then normal services will resume after the indignation wears off? Or will it the beginning of the end of the social media dominance of the platform? For me personally, I use FB primarily to keep in touch with friends, family and old colleagues who are spread all over the world. It is purely a contact tool, and not really used to market products of servi…

I mean do we really think Facebook is the only company with data problems? Is switching to something different really going to make a difference? Deleting your Facebook won't get rid of your data. Google, Microsoft, Twitter, your ISP, your cell carrier all have so much data on you. At this point you are out there in someone's database somewhere. Unless you haven't been on the grid at all which clearly anyone on HN is…

It should be #providenodataanymore

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#342

Post by liveoneggs »

wpasc wrote: post #285

First, I think what happened with Facebook/Cambridge Analytica is appalling. With that said, I think this article is silly and emblematic of poor technology coverage in the media. I think it would be awesome if users really did delete their facebook accounts if they thought these actions crossed some line. But the article cites ~50,000 #deletefacebook mentions. Come on, 50k hashtag shares is evidence of "Users Abando…

bot-infested echo chamber of social media addicts say they want to quit an addiction by telling other addicts about it

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#343

Post by johnx123-up »

coatmatter wrote: post #304
wpasc wrote: post #285

First, I think what happened with Facebook/Cambridge Analytica is appalling. With that said, I think this article is silly and emblematic of poor technology coverage in the media. I think it would be awesome if users really did delete their facebook accounts if they thought these actions crossed some line. But the article cites ~50,000 #deletefacebook mentions. Come on, 50k hashtag shares is evidence of "Users Abando…

The headline I'm seeing for the article as of 20180322T1509Z is "For Many Facebook Users, a ‘Last Straw’ That Led Them to Quit" (different to the one posted here - I don't know if it was changed at nytimes). Not everyone needs to delete Facebook - only a sufficient number of "core" users whom others look up to need to stop using it. That alone can cripple a network or sub-network. Remember that the number of users th…

NewsDiffs is buggy.. but you still get the idea of what changed there http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#344

Post by joering2 »

wilsonnb wrote: post #291
joering2 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Mark Zuckerberg is either incredibly naive, or a sleaze bag Hmm typically when someone says that people are "dumb fucks" it usually means they are simply incredibly naive /s

When a 20 year old calls people dumb fucks in a private conversation, it generally means that they are a normal 20 year old. Saying that Zuckerberg is a sleazebag based on a snippet of a private conversation he had 15 years ago when he was a college student is a stretch.

I remember being 20 years old and no, I haven't been calling people "dumb fucks" in private conversations; to the contrary, I ran a small website on geocites in 1995 (if you don't know them, google it) and was super-happy when I had people commenting on it. Last thing my 20-year old would call them was "dumb fucks" for merely entertaining with my site.

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#345

Post by wilsonnb »

joering2 wrote: post #344
wilsonnb wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a 20 year old calls people dumb fucks in a private conversation, it generally means that they are a normal 20 year old. Saying that Zuckerberg is a sleazebag based on a snippet of a private conversation he had 15 years ago when he was a college student is a stretch.

I remember being 20 years old and no, I haven't been calling people "dumb fucks" in private conversations; to the contrary, I ran a small website on geocites in 1995 (if you don't know them, google it) and was super-happy when I had people commenting on it. Last thing my 20-year old would call them was "dumb fucks" for merely entertaining with my site.

Your behavior is too small a sample size to have any bearing on the behavior of 20 year olds on average.

It's entirely possible that you're a much better person than Mark Zuckerberg. That doesn't make him a bad person.

I also remember being 20 and I said much worse things than calling a bunch of people dumb fucks in private conversation.

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#346

Post by qwerty456127 »

coatmatter wrote: post #332
qwerty456127 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am getting a bit annoyed by how shocked people on here are about this. Exactly. Didn't people know all the proprietary social networks are spyware+adware? That's the way they earn money. BTW Ghostery says it knows 92 trackers in the social media category.

I tried Ghostery twice and didn't understand it - sites seemed to keep breaking so I go with an alternative method (uBlock Origin + DuckDuckGo extension, and Brave on mobile). Based on this experience, Ghostery is not something I would simply throw on "most people's" computer. I would not for a single moment think that most people (as you implied) understand social networks. I think we become a part of the problem if…

I've only mentioned Ghostery to show there are dozens other social networks known spying on you. Do you happen to know one that doesn't?

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#347

Post by coatmatter »

alkonaut wrote: post #331
coatmatter wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we say around these parts, "perfect is the enemy of good". I've used Facebook a fair bit over the past decade and only deactivated it two months ago, after Zuckerberg signalled his intentions for 2018. I see a deactivated account as being a precursor to finding a way to test, properly obfuscate and then really delete. So compared to doing nothing, I am in the process of deleting as much as possible. I don't want t…

I agree there are tons of share praxtices here - but there is always the “alternative cost” to consider. For example - would the alternative be just switching to a different social network for “social graph management”? If so - which one? And for Facebook’s many services (calebdar, photo albums, chat) there are numerous alternatives to each - but would the privacy issues of using all those competitors together be wor…

They're good questions and would likely depend on how already invested one is into Facebook. You completely leaving it (for example) would probably not have as great an effect as me leaving, guessing on the fact that I've used it quite a lot over the past x years.

For those who are light users - my best guess is that they'll either not see the problem and continue, or switch to a more addictive platform (Twitter). You might choose to hand out a not-Facebook contact detail or alternative preferred method of events notification and this will probably contribute something to nudging another person toward a particular direction (if it's as simple as handing out a secure chat app and letting others know they exist, that could be a good thing)

For moderate and heavy users, they might deactivate and then delete Facebook and learn from that experience and then be wary of all social media from that point on and choose to go outside more to ride a bike in their local area, etc.

It's all worth considering.

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#348

Post by coatmatter »

IshKebab wrote: post #329
coatmatter wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposing you're right, what is Facebook so good at that MySpace couldn't manage to do? What really is their "moat" that no one else can touch? Interesting that you mention obesity, tobacco, cocaine and opiods because not all of those problems are inevitable for all societies. Personally, I think the two most misused technologies from last century is the car (invented late 19th century, but mostly innovated on in the…

Now it is network effects. But when it first started it became popular because: a) MySpace wasn't actually that popular (was your mum on it for example?) so there weren't many network effects. b) It looked clean, unlike the eye-stabbing experience of MySpace c) It was more secure than MySpace because only people from your university could see your profile. Things are different now so you're never going to have succes…

I agree with a lot of what you said, however:

a) Kids are finding they don't want to join what their parents are on. Heck, I don't want to stay on what parents (whom I knew from before they were parents) are on.

b) Elon Musk just said: "Looks lame anyway" - don't get "clean" and not-lame mixed up - most of Facebook does look lame in 2018 once people see past the window dressing; I actually think nearly every single company/personal page out there is a potential liability, often with not that much to gain (depends on the social media manager employed of course).

c) And university people are realising that Eternal September has arrived.

I have one simple answer to your last line (reflecting from my personal experience of being on Facebook for longer than I should have): For me, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#349

Post by coatmatter »

johnx123-up wrote: post #343
coatmatter wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline I'm seeing for the article as of 20180322T1509Z is "For Many Facebook Users, a ‘Last Straw’ That Led Them to Quit" (different to the one posted here - I don't know if it was changed at nytimes). Not everyone needs to delete Facebook - only a sufficient number of "core" users whom others look up to need to stop using it. That alone can cripple a network or sub-network. Remember that the number of users th…

NewsDiffs is buggy.. but you still get the idea of what changed there http://newsdiffs.org/article-history/https%3A/www.nytimes.co...

Cheers for that - I wasn't before aware of NewsDiffs. I'll definitely be making use of it again.

Re: Users Abandon Facebook After Cambridge Analytica Findings

#350

Post by dibstern »

bgilroy26 wrote: post #269
dibstern wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.

These h3h3 videos (The pro man-spreading one and the whiteface MTV one) are kind of silly. Would you really say that Buzzfeed's bias strains your credulity, or is it more likely that you simply disagree with them?

All of h3h3's videos are silly. That's his style of comedy.

You can't see that a video shaped entirely by left-wing identity politics that blames all men for the crimes of a few, that ignores practical realities contributing to the issue, has a left-wing bias? Are you serious?

Post reply on HN