351–360 of 736 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some sense this lawsuit is saying that the regulatory approvals of the Instagram and Whatsapp acquisitions were errors. How is the market going to fix that?
It's not, because it makes them a bucket of money. Only in hindsight with an FTC in the final days of a mercurial administration do we get stuff like this.
Perhaps it's time to move back to simpler things like OPML. (Which people seem more comfortable sharing freely - not sure if that's still a "social graph" tho.)
Perhaps specific relationship details shouldn't be housed in the social network - just the permission to follow.
Perhaps companies who house a "social graph" should be regulated - similar to what is done with medical data. It should be a toxic substance.
I just think we're a long way from doing this right and there are a lot of untried options - and I lack imagination as well.
http://helicraft.ca/kxt/aud-v-chi-cl1.html http://helicraft.ca/kxt/aud-v-chi-cl2.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really that big of a difference? You still have to go to the one section of walmart where they stock the cheese or car batteries or whatever. Walmart can set up their own shelves to emphasize their own brands if they want. If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.
Walmart paid for the products on their shelves. Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon. The difference, in case it's not clear: Walmart is the manufacturers' primary customer, so it's irrelevant from their point of view what products Walmart chooses to sell in its stores. The third-party sellers are the manufacturer's customers. The manufacturers still get paid either way. But we're not co…
Walmart uses their data to figure out which Walmart brand products they are going to sell. Instead of using search terms, they use product placement, making sure to place their brand near the product it is imitating. Dandruff shampoo next to name brand dandruff shampoo: Mac 'n' cheese next to mac 'n' cheese.
In fact, it is quite amazing how much brick-and-mortar stores can figure out about people simply by analyzing receipts - in some cases, figuring out folks were pregnant before they knew. [1]
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
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…
These are not the creations of Facebook or Google, any more than Anemometer (1) manufacturers should own the shipping forecast.
(1) The spinney half-ball things that measure wind speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. I don't think this is true. Facebook tracks your activity all over the web on thousands of third-party sites and builds a unique profile to identify you, without regard for you having an account. You can't opt out of this if you don't have a Facebook account. Some of these "social graph" features will do things like…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't this specific story debunked? (Don't shoot me, I'm genuinely asking)
The headline is false (“WhatsApp Backdoor allows Hackers to Intercept and Read Your Encrypted Messages”), in the sense that hackers can’t actually read and intercept WhatsApp messages. Normally the reporting of a security vulnerability includes a POC of an exploit. There isn’t one here, because hackers haven’t been able to exploit it. If an activist saw this story, got scared of WhatsApp, and decided to use SMS or Te…
Did you click through the link at all?
It's curious that you are using a new account with a gibberish name to make all these claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People willingly gave Facebook their social graph thinking it let them share photos and messages with their friends. They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.
They have to monetize and I approve.
Hell I’m willing to bet if Facebook puts into their agreement that every photo you upload to their platform is partially owned by them then people will still upload photos.
It’s not the data that we find valuable, it’s the connections they make or will make, and to this company. Next time you take a photo and find it’s shared with not just Facebook but a whole slew of other companies you tell me if that’s the right thing to do.
The person above said “do you trust all Facebook employees” well you can make that blanket argument for every company in existence and giving more companies our data isn’t a good solution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People willingly gave Facebook their social graph thinking it let them share photos and messages with their friends. They had no real idea what else it would or is being used for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term 'monopoly' is confusing because the pedantic definition is that there's only one player but this isn't the legal definition. It's not actually illegal to be a monopoly but to illegally abuse your market position leading to anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, it's never enforce properly as the FTC doesn't have any teeth. I think the only way we're going to solve this is to actually TAX these companies a…
If only the same entity that is now suing them for antitrust didn't approve these acquisitions, and fairly recently as well.
Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network. And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams. Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?
The term 'monopoly' is confusing because the pedantic definition is that there's only one player but this isn't the legal definition. It's not actually illegal to be a monopoly but to illegally abuse your market position leading to anti-competitive behavior. Unfortunately, it's never enforce properly as the FTC doesn't have any teeth. I think the only way we're going to solve this is to actually TAX these companies a…
We had a few decades of true antitrust, but the efforts to undermine it were successful. Check out Goliath by Matt Stoller for a decent history.