You are one of 500 million "customers" who aren't even paying them any money. They can drop you at any time.
users != customers
Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
61–70 of 90 posts
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#62As an aside, I had my personal account hacked last year. It was such a torturous process getting it back. They got into my gmail account, then took my fb account off that (I actually didn't realise the two were connected as I'd signed up to FB with my University of Otago email addy back when you had to have an academic address - turns out you could login with your "backup address"). Google's process for locking my account and getting it back to me was clinical, quick and mostly efficient: I had my account back in a day. Facebook took nearly two months of me trying everything to get them to respond. I got my friends to email them, I emailed them daily, I started a blog about my ordeal, I did everything then, finally, they got back to me, after nearly two months.
I think I was quite lucky to have both my gmail and FB go down at the same time as it showed me such a clear contrast of approaches. Google, though impersonal, still assume that you're telling the truth. Facebook just don't give a shit.
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#63The worst is that as soon as Facebook detects the stink on the internet of this, they will rectify the situation for ArsTechnica, but everyone else will still be screwed. When you are dealing with virtual monopolies that have zero customer support and negative processes (Facebook, Google, etc) getting locked out does not mean that you get go somewhere else, it literally mean getting locked out of an entire aspect of…
Why should facebook care? They are a "monopoly" that you willingly submitted yourself to. They created a great service and you bought into it. If all your friends are on facebook then that's you and your friends' own damn fault. "It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!" So what if facebook was never around? You are in debt to them for such a great service, they ne…
Why should Facebook care? They should care because they need that content (obviously not individually, but in aggregate).
There's an implicit agreement here - the user puts time and effort into providing content to Facebook that Facebook users want to see, and Facebook puts that content in front of lots of people. If the risk of Facebook reneging on the deal becomes seen as too high, fewer content creators are going to take up the offer.
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary - Facebook owes it's users everything. Without them, Facebook does not exist. Every user provides Facebook with content, which Facebook then monetizes using ads. Every user also views those ads, directly earning Facebook money. To assume that since there is no legal contract between a user and Facebook, Facebook has no need to treat its users well is simply untrue. The users make Facebook, not the oth…
Did you read through the FB Terms of Service back when you signed up? When I last read through that (and which was admittedly a few years back), the ToS indicated that whatever you uploaded became available to FB in perpetuity, and for whatever purpose FB wanted to make of it. Put another way, if you didn't pay for something, then there's a good change it's you that's what's being sold.
This comment is a complete non-sequitur response to the previous comment. It's completely true, but in no way addresses the points raised.
The Terms of Service are irrelevant to the idea of whether "it's the users that make Facebook". Put it this way: how useful would Facebook be if you were the only user?
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#65The worst is that as soon as Facebook detects the stink on the internet of this, they will rectify the situation for ArsTechnica, but everyone else will still be screwed. When you are dealing with virtual monopolies that have zero customer support and negative processes (Facebook, Google, etc) getting locked out does not mean that you get go somewhere else, it literally mean getting locked out of an entire aspect of…
In what sense are you or I customers of Google or Facebook if we don't pay money to either company to use any of their services?
That is interesting, we are not their customers but their resource. Their real customers are the companies that they sell our data to.
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#66Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Random abuse against innocent people isn't really the moral solution. Public complaints and negative press for Facebook is a better way.
Don't Sony and friends have Facebook pages? Since they're the ones that insisted that this weapon be built, it would be ironic if it were deployed against them. (not that I'd advocate such an action, mind you)
Do you honestly think MegaCorp One has no protections/oversight in place to protect other MegaCorps that use its services?
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should facebook care? They are a "monopoly" that you willingly submitted yourself to. They created a great service and you bought into it. If all your friends are on facebook then that's you and your friends' own damn fault. "It's not fair! Facebook has a responsibility to its users! I demand them to do such and such!" So what if facebook was never around? You are in debt to them for such a great service, they ne…
That's the problem, Facebook and other virtual monopolies don't care because they don't have to. > You are in debt to them for such a great service, they never forced you to become so dependent. No. I'm not in debt to them. My ad views and clicks cancel the debt for the provided service. And my patronage further adds to push that balance in my favor. In a way, you can say that Facebook and Google are in my debt. > "I…
It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. The way Facebook handles these things is exactly the way their users want them to handle it. Facebook provides a part of the internet that is 'safe'.
Facebook and Zuckerberg's responsibilities are to their shareholders. As far as I can tell they've been taking that responsibility pretty seriously.
Furthermore, Facebook is not a monopoly in any meaningful sense of the word, they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet. As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free.
How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice that unfairly prejudices it's competitors? It would seem to me that the more widespread this practice becomes at Facebook the better it's competitors would do.
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#69The worst is that as soon as Facebook detects the stink on the internet of this, they will rectify the situation for ArsTechnica, but everyone else will still be screwed. When you are dealing with virtual monopolies that have zero customer support and negative processes (Facebook, Google, etc) getting locked out does not mean that you get go somewhere else, it literally mean getting locked out of an entire aspect of…
I really dislike this high-minded morality drama that seems to crop up on the Internet when Facebook or Google or Apple does something stupid.
If losing your Facebook page (or Twitter account or regular call-in segment on your local morning talk show or any other marketing vehicle) would be a serious blow to your online strategy, then Facebook has much too prominent a spot in your online strategy.
Whatever happened to making your business's website the destination for consumers? I fucking despise Facebook as much as anyone else, but I am finding it a little difficult mustering up sympathy for any business or blogger whose business is impacted disproportionately by losing their Facebook page.
It's like programmers who build their entire business around a company's API. When the company decides to drastically alter the terms of use of that API, it's catastrophic for the programmer's company. It's terrible for the hacker, yes, but "don't put all your eggs in one basket" is a cliche for a reason.
Re: Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem, Facebook and other virtual monopolies don't care because they don't have to. > You are in debt to them for such a great service, they never forced you to become so dependent. No. I'm not in debt to them. My ad views and clicks cancel the debt for the provided service. And my patronage further adds to push that balance in my favor. In a way, you can say that Facebook and Google are in my debt. > "I…
It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives. The way Facebook handles these things is exactly the way their users want them to handle it. Facebook provides a part of the internet that is 'safe'. Facebook and Zuckerberg's responsibilities are to their shareholders. As far as I can tell they've been taking that responsibility pretty seriously. Furthermore, Fa…
> It would be difficult to prove that Facebook has a monopoly on social media, there are many alternatives.
There are also many alternatives to Google.
Except to the webmasters, since Google brings in 95-98% of a website's traffic.
> they definitely don't have more than 50% of the ad revenue on the internet
I don't see why you're injecting ad revenue into this.
> As a person who consumes Facebook's services for free you really have no leg to stand on as to what Facebook is legally obligated to provide you for free.
I have stated nothing of the sort.
> How can you argue that kicking people off Facebook is a monopolistic practice
I have not stated nor argued anything of the sort.
What I have stated is that after you get to a certain size and market share (monopoly) where you begin to effect the lives and welfare of people, society, and businesses, "public good" rules begin to apply to you (or should be applied to you).
No one is asking for free services. What we are asking for is fare treatment and fare processes.