161–170 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
By decentralizing you have to expose more things for interaction with different services leaving you more entry-points for a potential attack.
I submit pretending every interface is external is expensive and painful but perhaps an accurate reflection of reality.
I wonder how "Wall Street is not your friend" would play in the NY Times. I mean I get it, greed and flexible morality result in exploitation of the masses, but it is not unique to tech. During the dot.com boom it was pretty clear that there were people here in the Bay Area whose only goal was to sell some investors on an idea, pump it up, take it public on a story, pocket some big profits and then blow town. My frie…
>I wonder how "Wall Street is not your friend" would play in the NY Times. NY Times regularly publishes very critical opinion pieces on Wall St behavior. Here's a particularly good one from last year, "When You Dial 911 and Wall Street Answers", Part 1 of a 5 part teardown on how PE firms have wormed their way into critical services in search of profits: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/business/dealbook/when-yo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my experience as well. While my family are enjoying their Amazon Dots and "Hey Siri" and everything else, I'm constantly reminding them of how evil these companies are, and how they're constantly consuming and eating information, while Uncle Sam syphons every drip of internet off the pipeline. Convenience, in my mind, has never been worth the price of losing anonymity.
I'm honestly pretty baffled by the whole "techies hate privacy and undermine consumers" genre. I mean, sure, engineers built Echo/Alexa and the Equifax website. But engineers also built Signal and HIBP. Programmers vary in their concern for privacy, just like any other group, but my general experience is that they skew more privacy-conscious than the general consumer. The writers who admit that often frame it as hypo…
I grew up reading 2600 and the jargon file and early slashdot, and hanging out on freenode and usenet, so i've been indoctrinated in this way of thinking this way for 20 years. In my experience, the people who built the net are among its sharpest and most vocal critics, and there's some cause for that. I'm not sure what the implications of everyone else thinking this way will be.
You also grew up reading Snow Crash wink Some things just don't make sense to me. Why are the default settings for something like Facebook public? Why not friends by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the first problem is that is a crime to allow a foreign national (which includes companies) to purchase political ads in US campaigns (Federal Election Campaign Act). If Russia efforts to buy ads on Facebook were sufficiently masked maybe Facebook wouldn't be responsible, but some indications are that some of these ads were purchased by clearly Russia entities. Second potential problem is that it is alleged that…
They were not political ads. Does anyone read anymore? They were ads that highlighted social issues. That's it.
Maybe the fact that the majority of the ads were not explicitly promoting or attacking any particular candidate will be enough to absolve Facebook of any blame. But chances are there were far more ads purchased than just that $100k buy so the question will be what did Facebook know, when did they know, and what did they do about it. Same deal with Twitter.
I wonder how "Wall Street is not your friend" would play in the NY Times. I mean I get it, greed and flexible morality result in exploitation of the masses, but it is not unique to tech. During the dot.com boom it was pretty clear that there were people here in the Bay Area whose only goal was to sell some investors on an idea, pump it up, take it public on a story, pocket some big profits and then blow town. My frie…
With wall street, we knew that we were dealing with people of low character because they were open about it. “greed is good” was the motto
With silicon valley, the tech companies portrayed themselves as do-gooder “don’t be evil” types on a mission of contribution and some of us were naive enough to believe it. Big difference.
I think we tend to hate those who betray our trust us more strongly than those who are honest about their intentions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is naive, at best. I have a network of people in my life that I must maintain contact with, and their platforms of choice are these platforms. Must maintain? With who? Do you use FB to exclusively chat to your wife and boss or something? Will the stasi knock at your door for not checking in with Lord Zuckerberg every 5 minutes? I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there are people who's ONLY platform…
Not op but there are people who I like to communicate with on Facebook and Snapchat and the like who if I got off that platform I would never see again because that is their primary platform for communication. I have tried to lose these applications for a week or month at a time and I do miss out on the latest happenings with them. I have tried to switch them to different services but for one reason or another they d…
I don't see it as a switching cost. Well I do, but only in the beginning. You switch the thing on and you are exposed to X more people. Then it seems like switching it off you're losing those people, but you're probably just going back to your original state.
>Commonly this is the switching cost of learning how a new app works but to lose those friendships are not worth the anonymity that I gain from not using the services.
It is to me. I would definitely make a switch for a friend if all it was was changing an app. If they can't do the same, like they literally couldn't download or use a different fucking app then they can fuck off. Like our friendship is worth so little they can't EVEN be bothered to download an app. Fuck those people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the first problem is that is a crime to allow a foreign national (which includes companies) to purchase political ads in US campaigns (Federal Election Campaign Act). If Russia efforts to buy ads on Facebook were sufficiently masked maybe Facebook wouldn't be responsible, but some indications are that some of these ads were purchased by clearly Russia entities. Second potential problem is that it is alleged that…
They were not political ads. Does anyone read anymore? They were ads that highlighted social issues. That's it.
If a Russian wants to tell someone in Germany that Hillary Clinton is just the worst, I don't think the US has any reason to expect it can stand between them and say they can't do that, just because she happens to be running a political campaign--especially since political campaigns in the US are interminably long and tedious, such that a public figure might be expected to be continuously connected to one political campaign or another for decades.
I think probably the best that could happen there is a disclosure rule, such that anyone that transmits such messages to a US recipient has to be able to identify the person or organization that created it, or to warn the recipient that the sender could not be identified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is naive, at best. I have a network of people in my life that I must maintain contact with, and their platforms of choice are these platforms. Must maintain? With who? Do you use FB to exclusively chat to your wife and boss or something? Will the stasi knock at your door for not checking in with Lord Zuckerberg every 5 minutes? I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there are people who's ONLY platform…
Not op but there are people who I like to communicate with on Facebook and Snapchat and the like who if I got off that platform I would never see again because that is their primary platform for communication. I have tried to lose these applications for a week or month at a time and I do miss out on the latest happenings with them. I have tried to switch them to different services but for one reason or another they d…
Do you seriously call such people "friends"?