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

Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 360 posts

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#171

Post by lucb1e »

aylmao wrote: post #115
Erlangolem wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe FB makes something like $6.50 per user. Obviously Google makes money from users too, and given overlap it seems likely that one user is worth quite a bit annually. Average that out over lifetime value, and we’re talking thousands of dollars. Imagine if the likes of Equifax treated silos of data as a liability instead of an asset to be milked. Properly valued, a breach of hundreds of millions of people’s dat…

This is interesting actually. In theory it makes sense for them to offer a subscription that gets rid of ads, and if priced well it could make them more money on a user than ads. I'm sure a few people would be pay $5.99 - $9.99 for ad-free Facebook, especially if this means getting rid of video ads too. Yet, if too many people opt for the paid option, technically advertiser value would fall, since less users would be…

> I'm sure a few people would be pay $5.99 - $9.99 for ad-free Facebook

It's not about the ads, it's about the tracking, profiling, and sharing/selling our data.

If I could pay a few dollars a month (I guess Facebook would be worth $3-5/mo to me, and Google $5-10/mo) and get out of the whole tracking/voter-manipulation/profiling/sharing data/etc. thing, that'd be worth it. That would have to include that any non-essential data is not recorded or (if I previously was on the free tier and am now paying for a year or so) permanently deleted. Of course many personal things fall in the 'necessary for functionality' category, like chat history and which pages I liked, but part of the deal is not using that data for anything other than the service itself. And if I decide to go to a competitor, I don't want to be blackmailed into paying to keep it private, so I'd want to have an option to permanently take out and delete my data once I leave.

Sounds like a tough bargain, given all the restrictions I'm putting on it, but the alternative is the current state where I'm not making them any money at all. Not using it is worth it to me, despite missing out on a few things. And I don't think the requirements are unfair, I'm just asking them to provide service X for price Y without anything else, but apparently in 2018 we have to mention that we don't want anything else, like having our data misused or shadow profiles being recorded.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#172

Post by libdjml »

jerheinze wrote: post #166
libdjml wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

two reasons: speed and security. Speed is self explanatory, security may not be obvious. I don’t believe Firefox to be on par with Chrome. It was years behind getting a sandbox, and doesn’t appear to have the engineering or QA focus on security that Edge/Chrome do.

> I don’t believe Firefox to be on par with Chrome. You need to know that the Tor Browser disables a lot of stuff that Firefox has to lower the attack surface, and you can lock it down further using the Security Settings in the Torbutton. Also you should look into a Whonix+Qubes OS setup, just because there's a sandbox doesn't mean you can't get hacked. For speed: It's not really that bad for general browsing.

If we’re talking about privacy of tor vs VPN, I want my entire network protected at the gateway, so not sure how the tor network keeps up with streaming video etc?

I wasn’t aware of the attack surface reduction, I’ll take a look at that, thanks for the recommendation.

My ground truth for this is usually to ask full-time exploit dev friends which is a harder target, although that’s probably flawed in that if you’re targeted by someone determined it probably doesn’t matter the cost.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#173

Post by kimdcmason »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #156
pnloyd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people seem to default to a really cynical view of tech businesses. I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many people hold is getting kinda old. Giving them your data is the price you pay for their service. If this doesn't seem fair to you the…

>I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps? >This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many peop…

.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#175

Post by jerheinze »

libdjml wrote: post #172
jerheinze wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t believe Firefox to be on par with Chrome. You need to know that the Tor Browser disables a lot of stuff that Firefox has to lower the attack surface, and you can lock it down further using the Security Settings in the Torbutton. Also you should look into a Whonix+Qubes OS setup, just because there's a sandbox doesn't mean you can't get hacked. For speed: It's not really that bad for general browsing.

If we’re talking about privacy of tor vs VPN, I want my entire network protected at the gateway, so not sure how the tor network keeps up with streaming video etc? I wasn’t aware of the attack surface reduction, I’ll take a look at that, thanks for the recommendation. My ground truth for this is usually to ask full-time exploit dev friends which is a harder target, although that’s probably flawed in that if you’re ta…

> I want my entire network protected at the gateway, so not sure how the tor network keeps up with streaming video etc?

With Qubes you can have a Whonix-ws VM have all its traffic go through Tor, and have another VM with all its traffic through some VPN to use with streaming.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#176

Post by [deleted] »

kimdcmason wrote: post #173
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps? >This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many peop…

.

[deleted]

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#177

Post by wu-ikkyu »

kimdcmason wrote: post #173
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I share this same same sentiment with the parent comment where I feel like Google "has my back" and I know for certain there products do make my life easier. I've never understood how people can have such a religious-like faith in a corporation they have never seen the inside of and in which they know not a single person who works there. Gullibility perhaps? >This guilty until proven innocent attitude that many peop…

.

How is it a strawman?

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#178

Post by kimdcmason »

jonathanyc wrote: post #168
tzakrajs wrote: post #128

Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use its platform to interact with users.

YouTube suggesting extremist videos to people in order to maximize views is giving you “information”? Can we stop pretending Google is somehow more useful to the average person than Facebook?

.

Re: Is Facebook Really Scarier Than Google?

#179

Post by wutbrodo »

aylmao wrote: post #105
wutbrodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is a piece that people elide pretty frequently. The Google founders have spoken about tons of things over the years, and consistently come across as being principled and passionate, even if your moral foundation is different from theirs. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, set the tone with the "dumb fucks" IM and has only recently gotten better at not projecting contempt for his users. I honestly couldn'…

Mark Zukerberg has a foundation with his wife, and they have vowed to donate 99% of their net worth to it [1]. This is Bill and Melinda Gates level; they also pledged to donate the vast majority of their wealth (95%). Sergey cheated on his wife with a Google employee (who was like 20 years younger and dating another executive) and got a widely publicized divorce [2]. We don't have transcripts for Sergey and Page, but…

I'm making no claim as to how they are as people, but rather what they see as the philosophical center of their organizations. "Cheated on his wife" and "has a foundation" couldn't be less relevant. Bill Gates, as you mention, is practically the poster child for charity, and yet the idea that that implies much useful about the principles that animated Microsoft under his tenure is foolhardy.

My statement didn't say anythjng about who they are as fully-rounded human beings, and even further, spoke only about the _perception_ of what their company's philosophies (as embodied by their founders words) are. You're flattening the nuance of my statement into a simple-minded "Sergey good, Zuck bad" that I didn't come close to expressing.

The rest of your comment is pretty much a non sequitur and this is already a pretty long response, so forgive me for not addressing it (though I'm happy to if you think I'm being unfair to your point).

Post reply on HN