Facebook claims it does not track users, but files patent to do same

Post by danssig » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:28 PM UTC

earplug wrote: post #55

Bud wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. It's also possible, and indeed true, that Facebook is lying through its teeth, aggressively tracking now while claiming not to, introducing ever-more-pervasive and invasive tracking without notifying users or giving them an informed choice in the matter, thus forcibly paving the way for the future that will place them in the most powerful position. Let's be real. Facebook has not "placed a long-term bet"; they…

If Facebook is "lying through its teeth" it will only hurt them in the long run. What is even more realistic is that they are getting (have become) so big that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. That becomes typical in a large organization. This could also simply be a way for them to protect themselves in the future, as we've all seen just how heated the patent space is becoming for the big boys…

Post by CWuestefeld » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 3:25 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #78

earplug wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm... I never made any such claims about consumer protection organizations. This is something you've conjured up on your own. The bottom line is, if this is something we (the users) do not want, we have the power to make Facebook change it. We've seen examples of this in the past with Facebook (ex: their friend recommended ad's). I don't believe we can rely on our government run organizations to wholly protect us,…

See this for why your thesis that the market will naturally reject this is probably wrong, even if it's abhorrent to them now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog It's very easy for liberties/expectations to be eroded imperceptibly until they're gone and people think that's the norm because that's the way things are, and everyone seems to be OK with it.

Post by ericd » Tue, Oct 04, 2011, 6:25 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #83

ericd wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this for why your thesis that the market will naturally reject this is probably wrong, even if it's abhorrent to them now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog It's very easy for liberties/expectations to be eroded imperceptibly until they're gone and people think that's the norm because that's the way things are, and everyone seems to be OK with it.

It's very easy to see why that's a problem. But it should be equally easy to see the long-term results when we attempt to use the strength of government to ensure market outcomes. It doesn't take long for the regulatory agency to wind up working for the goals of the very entities they're intended to police. This is called Regulatory Capture, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture . This isn't a problem o…

Post by ericd » Tue, Oct 04, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

earplug wrote: post #86

ericd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, there are problems there too, the point of my post was to refute the parent's opinion that the market would naturally take care of it. I'm afraid I don't have a good solution short of some way of screening for only people who are allergic to cronyism. Thanks for the link on Regulatory capture, I didn't realize that that phenomenon had a name, but I'm glad it does. It's one of the more infuriating things about th…

I don't believe the "market" will naturally take care of it. You're looking at this through blurred glasses. People, not markets, will have a choice (if they so decide) to use or not use something. Buy or not buy something. That is their power and we have copious examples through out our history of this indeed working should enough people get together and want to make this change. Again, we are talking about a privat…