Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#281

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

JetSpiegel wrote: post #245

reaperducer wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook does a background news feed update on your iPhone and notices that your iPhone wifi is on the same IP address as another phone (Android or otherwise) with location enabled, then it can record a correlation. There's probably even better ways of doing it.

Straight up GeoIP is good enough, particularly on WiFi. On mobile networks I believe the carries will gladly sell the tower-IMEI mapping. They already have to collect that for law enforcement purposes anyway.

In my experience GeoIP is unreliable.

Right now GeoIP identifies my desktop computer as being in northern Nevada. I'm 400 miles away.

Right GeoIP identifies my laptop as being in Atlanta. I'm 2,300 miles from Atlanta.

Right now GeoIP identifies my wireless hotspot as being in Los Angeles. I'm more than 400 miles from Los Angeles.

Three devices, inches away from each other in reality. But GeoIP thinks they're on opposite ends of the country.

GeoIP has certainly improved in the last few years, but I would never rely on it for anything important.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#282

Post by sjg007 » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #50

sjg007 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they’ll go to Instagram?

What happens if people start talking about how much they hate Zuckerberg and start looking for alternatives and the cool kids start suggesting each other some other social network that's technically good enough but never took off because didn't benefit from the network effect? Then anything he touches becomes toxic. Zuckerberg isn't even divisive like Trump, he may have issue finding people to rally with him against…

I mean the company that can really capitalize on this right now is snapchat.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#283

Post by Lionsion » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

_tulpa wrote: post #213

Lionsion wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By subsidising otherwise prohibitively expensive mobile data connections for Facebook traffic only, Facebook has become the internet in many countries. I like to see how much revenue Facebook gets from those countries vs. the US and Western Europe. > Competing with something this deeply entrenched would be difficult I don't think anything you listed makes FB so entrenched that's it's invulnerable. Facebook's big st…

> I like to see how much revenue Facebook gets from those countries vs. the US and Western Europe. That's not even the point, even if they're loosing money at the moment it's almost certainly worth it to capture those new users. > All the money in the world can't keep something fashionable forever. Facebook isn't fashionable or trendy, myspace et al took that angle which is why they're gone now, and also that's missi…

> That's not even the point, even if they're loosing money at the moment it's almost certainly worth it to capture those new users.

> Go to a place where facebook-subsidised connections are the only option that people can actually afford and your only alternative is basically social suicide.

It's relevant because a new competitor can target the more valuable developed-country users. FB being so dominant that it's "the internet" in some undeveloped countries is not a barrier to that.

> Facebook is a social utility that a crapload of people can't live without.

That's not true. There are very few people who can legally use FB who were born after it was created. There are also a crapload of people who are totally off it who get along fine.

> I have friends who I can't even contact without using facebook/messenger/whatsapp

I do to, but they're not people who I actually want or need to contact regularly.

Also, I'm pretty sure if you can contact someone on Whatsapp you can contact them without it. It's keyed on phone numbers, so you could always go back to texting.

> don't think many people truly grasp the scale and pervasiveness of Facebook and how there just isn't anything that is even remotely close to competing.

I don't agree you can infer longevity from present ubiquity. I don't think the social barriers that are protecting Facebook are as high as you think they are. To reiterate my point...

>> I don't think anything you listed makes FB so entrenched that's it's invulnerable. Facebook's big strengths are network effects and its pile of cash, but its weakness is that it's a leisure item in a somewhat trend-driven market. All the money in the world can't keep something fashionable forever.

Facebook can't demand user-exclusivity in developed markets, so its network effect strengths are vulnerable to attack. If it can't continually acquire the competitors that threaten to replace it, it will wither and die as its core app becomes unfashionable and superseded by shinier messaging and social broadcast platforms.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#284

Post by losteric » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #275

losteric wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has three types of "conspiracy theorists" * Logically consistent in niche fields that could be verified if more information was public (Room 641A); these should really just be called "theories" * Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule * Propaganda created by intelligent people with the intent of causing harm (Uranium One); these should simply be…

Yes, they are important distinctions. But the problem is how to not mistake one for the others?

Think?

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#285

Post by losteric » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

CaptainZapp wrote: post #272

losteric wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has three types of "conspiracy theorists" * Logically consistent in niche fields that could be verified if more information was public (Room 641A); these should really just be called "theories" * Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule * Propaganda created by intelligent people with the intent of causing harm (Uranium One); these should simply be…

* Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule Antivaxxers certainly fall into what you call "garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people" Those theories are anything but harmless, actually kill people and sabotage decades of medicinal breakthroughts, which saved millions of lifes.

True.... though I bucket that under my last grouping, because I think there's a conspiracy attacking the legitimacy and experience of scientists. If the public mistrusts doctors and vaccines, they're more likely to distrust climate change and anti-refined-sugar research.