281–290 of 478 posts
It’s a cycle. Facebook has been doing nasty shit and apologizing for it since 2003. I’m starting to think they aren’t actually sorry. https://www.wired.com/story/why-zuckerberg-15-year-apology-t...
Another personal observation. I have an Instagram account that I thought was fully incognito. I never connected it to any other social account, I used a separate email for authentication etc. Just days after the Instagram founders left Facebook I started receiving friend suggestion on my IG that were very very relevant. Those were people I knew in real life and mostly connected via Facebook but not only. I shouldn't…
I had watched it many many years ago, and I suddenly remembered about it while at my friends apartment, (which is in the same building). Now I searched it up on my friends computer which was logged into his gmail account. We watched it and laughed. However, an hour later, I was on my iPhone at home when it appeared in my related videos.
http://i.imgur.com/u31ZuWM.jpg
I refreshed and it was gone...
People of multiple platforms dislike me for discrediting facebook. Simply talking about facts and what they could expect. They think they know it all. Some corps are good some are evil. People tend to forget that an evil person could also be your most trusted and reliable one. I work as a cyber security engineer and the things i have see flying by are crazy. The fact that information is sold without you4 knowledge is…
What can we do about it? I realize this is probably not answerable in this thread but I find myself asking this question more frequently lately and I still cannot answer it. would be happy to see this discussion split into an Ask HN: or other, I think this topic should be debated quite a bit more than it is with the goal of attaining real results on fixing these issues.
FB and similar surveillance shops thrive because people let them. People let them, primarily, because humans instinctually follow a safety-in-numbers model - FB just couldn't be that bad, or someone would have done something about it. That is likely the most clever/evil hack - FB flips this instinct on its head.
So keep telling people the truth about FB. It is a tacky AOL 2.0 panopticon optimized to manipulate you in the name of your friends and family. The company routinely lies about their practices, the CEO gives all appearances of being an untrustworthy weasel, and they're more interested in growth than the damage (up to and including facilitating mob violence!) they're doing.
And: the net is a big place. FB is a big corner of it, but unless you'd also think living inside a Walmart is a great idea, there's a lot out there that you're missing.
It took years, but I've gotten some family members to stop using them.
It should be already well understood that free services aren't free. To me the moral issue of the story is how Facebook isn't upfront about "the cost" of the services they provide. You want to use facebook to get in touch with friends? We all now know that you will be targeted by ads customized with every piece of information that you reveal (and some bits that you are not even aware you are revealing...) Assume that…
It’s a cycle. Facebook has been doing nasty shit and apologizing for it since 2003. I’m starting to think they aren’t actually sorry. https://www.wired.com/story/why-zuckerberg-15-year-apology-t...
Right, because Move fast and break stuff is their mantra. I'm surprised that articles doesn't even mention it. Perhaps Move fast and hurt people would be more honest. I think it's rather catchy.
I was purging my life of all things Google(Facebook went first), so I was changing my email addresses under all my various accounts. An odd thing happened when I was changing my info for my Microsoft account: they texted my as a security precaution. The only problem is that I NEVER gave Microsoft my phone number. I do not have 2FA set up. In my contact details, there is a blank for my phone number. WTF Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indirectly GDPR does this. All data collection must be either opt in, or necessary to provide the service.
But does GDPR really allow this business model at all? A website cannot as per GDPR say "accept tracking or we refuse service", if tracking is not necessary to provide the service. Can they say "pay or accept tracking or we refuse service"?
You can personally decide not to use Facebook, which is good. But you can't convince everybody to do that. So if you or your family members do use Facebook, at least install an ad blocker for all of them. Not for privacy, but to deny them revenue. I block Google ads on every single site I visit, period. I don't care if the advertising is non-obtrusive. If it's being run through Google, part of that revenue is going t…
> You can personally decide not to use Facebook, which is good. But you can't convince everybody to do that. Pretty scary. Which means Facebook has a shadow profile of you even if you don't use it at all: http://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-ab...
We should try to find one. I fully support the privacy fixes people are proposing. I think that's really important. But it's pretty obvious that Facebook is winning right now.
However, the only thing that Facebook cares about is getting you to click on an ad. So even if you can't stop Facebook from getting a shadow profile on you, at least you can make that profile worthless by blocking ads literally everywhere that Facebook can think to display them to you, for you and your family/friends.
And you can be public about it to ensure that when Facebook goes to companies and says, "we have all this data for your next campaign", somebody in the sales-pitch meeting raises their hand and says, "yeah, but nobody looks at your ads."
What's facebook's boiling point? My guess is they'll respond, they'll no longer use 2FA #'s for ads, the damage will have been done, and 99% of the population won't know any of it occurred. We'll repeat this cycle when a fresh revelation occurs months from now, as facebook continues to test how much they can leverage for more ad revenue. But none of it is actually slowing FB down. Its biggest dip in value came from d…
Also, FB MAUs and DAUs are stalled [2], meaning users are becoming less interested in the blue website.
If anything, FB is closer to a 'boiling point' now than ever in the past.
[1] https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wUQP/facebook-a-little-closer
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-maus-daus-stalled-u...
It’s a cycle. Facebook has been doing nasty shit and apologizing for it since 2003. I’m starting to think they aren’t actually sorry. https://www.wired.com/story/why-zuckerberg-15-year-apology-t...
Right, because Move fast and break stuff is their mantra. I'm surprised that articles doesn't even mention it. Perhaps Move fast and hurt people would be more honest. I think it's rather catchy.
