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

Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#121

Post by kbenson »

yesenadam wrote: post #116
kbenson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General advertising is not a problem. Individually targeted advertising is. General advertising includes the sign on the door or exterior of the brick and mirter storefront, as well as billboards, magazine/newspaper ads, and product placement in media. It ranges from almost entirely informative (on the storefront) to annoying and off-putting (some billboards, poorly done product placement). This advertising is passiv…

General advertising is not a problem. I'm not sure why you would say that. e.g. There's a old silo building overlooking a bay near where I live, opposite a park, which has a huge billboard ad atop it the length of the building, which dominates the skyline. Calling that passive seems odd. It's aggressive, incredibly tasteless, and a symptom of a huge failure of civilization. edit: And well, this is Sydney. Last night…

It's passive because you have to be around it to see it, and you have to look that direction, and it isn't tracking how you respond to it.

They are annoying (but that's not inherent, it's entirely possible for someone to buy a billbaord and put up a great work of art or something), but they aren't a problem in the same class as the individually targeted advertisements that incentivize massive data collection and correlation projects and privacy violations.

> Then, incredibly, the Premier of NSW (i.e. the leader of the state) forced the Opera House to back down, and show the ads. There's been widespread incredulity and outrage here about that! So, yeah, it is a problem.

I think that's (possibly) a problem, but in a way entirely divorced from the problem of advertising. It depends entirely on the reason. If it was forced because the Opera house if funded with government money, maybe that plays into whether they can/should reject certain ads. I imagine that would play into the discussion in the U.S. (where whether you accept government money affects whether you can legally exclude certain classes of people, to my knowledge).

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#122

Post by arthurcolle »

jfk13 wrote: post #105
arthurcolle wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pomme is totally lying about privacy. They are just a little more clever in how they portray themselves to the public. Everything is networked, and anyone with LS (maybe other tools exist, but LS certainly serves my needs well) can see how many times actions are taken in the form of outgoing requests on your primary content-creation/programming device that isn't just a passive device meant to consume content, and few…

> When they see you don't have AppleCare (or AppleCare+, or AppleCare++, whatever they want to call it) on a device they will deliberately cause that device to malfunction using a device-specific OTA update that causes things like dead pixels, and other visible obstructions that make the device slightly less usable than it was before. Citation? I haven't seen any indication that this has happened to any of the Apple…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl...

Same bullshit, different context. We have no way of knowing for sure because there are no accepted network traffic monitors and no packet-sniffing capabilities with iPhones or iPads. But my iPad started developing mysterious problems the day after the warranty expired and a line of dead pixels appeared on a device that was never shocked physically in any manner, and was sitting most of the time on a table next to my couch.

I'm glad it hasn't happened to you. Lucky you.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#123

Post by echevil »

kbenson wrote: post #97
wil421 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don’t get mad when they see a coke bottle or an Apple product placed in a scene of a movie or tv show. People do get mad when they are trying to watch TV and they keep being forced to watch a commercial.

General advertising is not a problem. Individually targeted advertising is. General advertising includes the sign on the door or exterior of the brick and mirter storefront, as well as billboards, magazine/newspaper ads, and product placement in media. It ranges from almost entirely informative (on the storefront) to annoying and off-putting (some billboards, poorly done product placement). This advertising is passiv…

"Individually targeted ads" is intrinsically more relevant to the individual and leads to better click through rate. It is in the interest of both the company who run these ads and the user who see these ads (that they're much more likely to see something relevant and useful).

If an ad intends to confuse their audience to think they're purely informational material, they probably should not be shown to anyone. That's a completely different issue, and Facebook's ad censoring step is supposed to deal with that.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#124

Post by fermienrico »

paulcole wrote: post #61
fermienrico wrote: post #9

It’s very simple: As a consumer, we cannot trust any advertisement company. Their goals are in direct conflict with user privacy. In fact it’s not a wishful goal, it is their business model. Our attention is very expensive and everything is designed around us to grab us by the neck so to speak. Flashing ads, stories and feeds. I cannot, absolutely cannot, trust Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook, Visa, Amex,…

> So charge us for your service and stop forcing me to view ads, selling off my privacy into a giant bidding war of advertisers. Fuck advertisement. Easy to say this if you have the money to pay for it which the vast majority of Americans do not.

It’s sad that internet is all free but an average American is OK with spending $105/month on a cable package and STILL be targeted with ads.

What a world we live in. The problem is not that average person doesn’t have money, the problem is that these advertising giants have gotten people to expect that online services should be free (but in exchange for privacy).

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#125

Post by sonnyblarney »

vmsp wrote: post #117
fermienrico wrote: post #9

It’s very simple: As a consumer, we cannot trust any advertisement company. Their goals are in direct conflict with user privacy. In fact it’s not a wishful goal, it is their business model. Our attention is very expensive and everything is designed around us to grab us by the neck so to speak. Flashing ads, stories and feeds. I cannot, absolutely cannot, trust Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook, Visa, Amex,…

I think you're completely wrong. You and I care about privacy and it feels like everyone does too because we're only getting signals from inside our own little tech bubble. People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that. At least not enough to stop using Facebook and whatnot. Most of my friends and acquaintances are software engineers and couldn't care less about Facebook's scandals and how it uses thei…

"People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that."

People do care about their privacy - absolutely - and that 'care' is increasing. That said, I definitely agree with 'bubbletink'.

"Privacy is not a product, it's a feature" is generally what I say, unless it's literally some kind of 'id securing' product you're selling. By that I mean, for a social network or any other non-security product, what users care about most is ease of use, cost, features, access to friends, hype/cool factor ... and then privacy is just one of those later tick-boxes.

So I don't even think that a 'privacy first' Social Network will really take off unless it offers something else, more salient as it's primary offer, with 'privacy' just happening to be a really nice add-on, or better yet, something inherent or existential about the product or architecture.

Also, I do think people are 'voting with their feet' as a lot of folks are switching to things like Instagram, wherein it's just some photos, the ability to message, and not a lot of the deep banter and political stuff. Just fashion, kiddies, kittens, celeb-selfies, and a lot less dialogue. This 'trend' is in a way inherently more private because it implies considerably less personal information, and considerably more default-private activity.

Also remember that Snapchat got big because of 'disappearing videos'. It wasn't just 'stories' - it was 'stories that disappear' and can't be searched! A little bit of sexting innuendo there, but an inherent 'privacy' nature to that.

In then end, we should also consider that many of us (esp. your Eng friends) are not stupid, and may just opt to use FB in a fairly minimalist fashion, i.e. not sharing too-too much.

I used FB in that manner and I make no assumptions about what they are 'learning' about me, and frankly, I don't care that much.

Apple is just not a data/social company - and so this new 'privacy trend' fell on their laps just about the same way the blockchain stuff fell on NVidia. It's a movement that is consistent with their current business model, and so it behoves them to continue in that direction and even support it.

But yes, fully agree, most of us have quite a different perspective than 'joe user' we have to consider that.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#126

Post by pmiller2 »

aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #118
JeanMarcS wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And next, they’ll shoot shows with green boxes and green posters, and it will be filled with targeted brands on the fly. I think that’s the next move as soon as the technology will be ready.

A colleague of mine was working on this very same technology years ago! And they don’t need green boxes - it works perfectly with real billboards that happened to be included in the footage.

What about cereal boxes and soda cans?

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#127

Post by dsfyu404ed »

loadedanvils wrote: post #99
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much to be gained by not flinging poo online when everyone else is doing it. It's not like there's any reward for exceeding the lowest common denominator.

Why should your personal standards be determined by other people? You have complete control over what you say online, there's no reason to compromise your personal integrity.

>Why should your personal standards be determined by other people?

People have been conforming to the norms of whatever group they're in for millennia. They're not going to stop now.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#128

Post by Zelphyr »

codyb wrote: post #85
Zelphyr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My apologies for the accusatory tone but aren't you kind-of proving the point of the article? Keeping your Facebook account because of the events calendar means you place more value in convenience than you do privacy, Facebook knows it, and they're not going to change.

Wouldn't facebook already have his data anyways even if he deleted his account? I thought they were even making shadow profiles of people who didn't exist? So if he's not adding new information the only info he's giving them is by what events he clicks which is still valuable. And then of course if he browses the web with the facebook cookie that probably gives them a significant amount of browser habits, no? Which i…

I don't think the answer is to just give up. Sure they have shadow accounts. But that data gets stale after you delete your account. And you can hasten that by blocking Facebook domains so that they can't track your movements around the web.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#129

Post by andrei_says_ »

echevil wrote: post #119
vmsp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're completely wrong. You and I care about privacy and it feels like everyone does too because we're only getting signals from inside our own little tech bubble. People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that. At least not enough to stop using Facebook and whatnot. Most of my friends and acquaintances are software engineers and couldn't care less about Facebook's scandals and how it uses thei…

Maybe those who care that much about privacy should use a complete different set of products. I, for one, would be more than happy to let Facebook/Google/Netflix/Yelp to use my personal data to customize their product to serve better content, better ads and better everything to me. I'm much more upset about Yelp when they keep recommending restaurants that I apparently won't care about even I've been feeding them so…

What’s interesting in your Facebook history today is your daily route, when you use your phone, the people you’re connected to through two degrees of separation or by inhabiting the same locations at the same time, and also the provability to swing your vote on a few very particular issues.

Re: Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

#130

Post by aaaaaaaaaab »

pmiller2 wrote: post #126
aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A colleague of mine was working on this very same technology years ago! And they don’t need green boxes - it works perfectly with real billboards that happened to be included in the footage.

What about cereal boxes and soda cans?

Might be possible, but you can’t really advertise the latest LG vacuum cleaner on a cereal box, while on a billboard anything goes.
Post reply on HN