141–150 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are wrong about Germany. Only if you are a company you need permission.
No, you are wrong, this law applies to everyone.
Ok, well this is just great. So Facebook has all my contacts from their aquisition of WhatsApp and even though I've never used any of their Apps or had an account with them, I'm pretty sure everyone I typically communicate with has the App and did not opt-out of this collection. So they get data on me for free that the police would need a court order to get. This kind of data retention has been highly controversial i…
My knowledge in this area is limited, so maybe others can pipe in, but assuming massive amounts of data on millions (or most?) Facebook users is out in the wild, which cannot be 'put back': 1. how well can this be actually used currently to create a proper psychosocial(?) profile of an individual? What's the current state of the art? Any suggestions for books or papers to read on the matter? 2. do we have any idea of…
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
The problem is not that they took it. There are always bad actors. The problem is that very few people cared. So even if people start leaving facebook in mass, it will just start all over again with another bad actor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly recommend Telegram. The issue with having to install yet another app is still present, but me and my close friends have made the switch and haven't looked back since.
Telegram, while good software, is the worst of the messengers, because they're based in Russia. The Russian government recently asked for the encryption keys and they have like one more week to comply. CORRECTION: They're currently in Dubai and are relocating as needed.
As far as I know the team is in Dubai right now.
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
> Legally yes, they had permission. California is a two-party consent state for recording, and it's not an unreasonable stretch to say this should also include call metadata. If one party (i.e. Me) opted out, and someone else didn't, they now have a log that I didn't give them permission to make. I think this is probably the most strong case users will have against Facebook, and I honestly think it's a pretty damned…
Yes. It is an unreasonable stretch. Cal. Penal Code § 632 prohibits "eavesdrop[ping] upon or record[ing] [a] confidential communication." There is no set of circumstances in the history of telecommunications where seeing your itemized phone bill is the same as eavesdropping.
I understand you feel violated. You should. What Facebook did is vile. But that's not a reason to throw due process out the window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate to play devil's advocate against something i agree with here, but there's a lot of subjective ideas here, most obviously determining which button is "most prominent."
In a world where we have already been preconditioned to certain design patterns, the blue button is clearly the more prominent and will subconsciously be considered the "default" option.
(Its grey-on-white designed to look identical to the copy text above the button. The only difference is placement, and a small difference in font size.)
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
People simply do not care about their privacy if its in conflict with convenience. It has been common knowledge for years that Facebook will directly use that data against you and still people, completely aware of this, didn't care.
The only thing that made people care about their loss of privacy was a change in fashion. A new trend. Somehow, now, it is suddenly bad where before it wasn't. I simply cannot find the words to blame Facebook for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dark pattern like this one needs to be hammered down by law. We should consider the most prominent button as "default" and such a form as an "opt-out".
Is this really a dark pattern? The text is right there. It's not convoluted legalese, it's extremely straightforward. If people aren't willing to read that, how exactly are you supposed to get anyone's consent for anything?
At least it used to, and it was really abrasive about it. Definitely dark pattern behaviour
I think we are talking differently about this permission concept. Legally yes, they had permission. But the fact that they used those dark ux patterns to request that permission should not be forgotten. Even though legally they are in the right, we as users should make this fact irrelevant and just abandon the platform. Let them be right, let them win the argument but lose the battle with the general public.
I'm still completely convinced that this whole scandal will not damage Facebook a bit, in the long term. Yeah, the stock is going to be a bit lower for some weeks, some people will leave, but the largest part of the Facebook users has not even realised the scandal in full scale. They're not going anywhere, they're going to continue as is, since there really is not alternative for Facebook right now and tbh they would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People don't read the pages. People don't read the user agreements. Then maybe "people" shouldn't act completely outraged when they find out that their call history was uploaded?
The ToS and other conditions attached to various services and relationships are literally far too long and complex for anyone to read, understand, and recall in full detail. This point has been the subject of numerour articles and documentaries. Hoback states that if one was to read everything in these user/service agreements, it would take one full month, that’s 180 hours every year” and that according to The Wall S…
But first of all, the prompt shown in the article's screenshot was not hidden in a long ToS.
Second of all, I agree that we should work towards solving the problem that overly-long ToSs represent. What I do not agree with is the assertion that, in the presence of an overlong-ToS, we allow people to click-through, then get outraged at the company for doing something they were allowed to do by the ToS. If it really is far too long and complex for you to read, don't use the product.