311–320 of 736 posts
In all of these threads on Apple, Google, Facebook and friends, its fascinating that the overall tone and position of technologists has changed over time from radical cyberpunk freedom to "monopolies aren't that bad really".
People are still advocating for radical freedom but can also happily support products and companies where users benefit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy? I think you…
I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.
They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.
I feel like instead of pushing for the companies to separate, congress should pass laws mandating [adversarial interoperability]( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... ). Then the data (including the social graph) really would belong to the users, and facebook would have to compete with multiple other “social network clients” that would rapidly emerge. Facebook would lose some monopoly profi…
There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.
I'm not defending VK — it does some increasingly user-hostile stuff too after having been acquired by Mail.Ru Group — but you can still integrate it into whatever the hell you want with ease.
Can someone help me understand why the acquisitions here are considered anticompetitive? I get it, if I buy the competition, then I'm reducing my competition. If I'm a car wash and I buy another car wash across the street, arguably our services overlap 100%. But maybe the acquired carwash was $4 more expensive and served a more luxury clientele. Is that a competitor or not a competitor or both? How can you also ever…
Just to add - they also say the lawsuit is focusing not just on anticompetitive acquisitions, but anticompetitive practices related to developer access to APIs. Apparently Facebook has been heavy-handed towards developers that sought to use their APIs for any product that might have overlapped with their products. An example is Vine - Vine was apparently blocked from using the Facebook API to share videos or something.
In their case this is 100% obvious that they buy any new dating app in order to keep their monopoly and the result is clearly bad for the users
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy? I think you…
I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://thehackernews.com/2017/01/whatsapp-encryption-backdo... In short, their implementation allows to change the encryption keys of users without their consent to arbitrary, known keys. The protocol won't re-encrypt sent messages, but there is nothing in the protocol forcing the app to show a notification that your encryption key has changed, which amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack. Any subsequent messages sen…
Wasn't this specific story debunked? (Don't shoot me, I'm genuinely asking)
Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed. Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search com…
> Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default. But these aren't the complain…
I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ideal world, I'd like both. Mandated interoperability would help a great deal—but I also don't believe Facebook should ever have been allowed to buy Whatsapp, and it's worth undoing that.
Why? WhatsApp today is a great messaging app platform with end-to-end encryption.
End-to-end encryption in a proprietary app is a joke. "Please trust us we encrypt your messages".