Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#231

Post by gotofritz »

CaptSpify wrote: post #205
gotofritz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old are you? I am asking because I remember full well the pre-facebook days when people would send around 'funny videos' to groups of friends, with no chance of opting out, getting your email address shared with people you don't know, filling your inbox with crap, etc... Something like FB is hundreds times more convenient

wat It's insanely easier to filter those things out with email. It's been years since I've used FB, but I don't recall any very good filters for those types of things, and in fact they are incentivized to show you more of them.

No it isn't - not if the same person sends you a mixture of useless and usefule emails. And it doesn't solve the problem of your email adress being made public.

With FB, you simply go on it when you feel like / have the time.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#232

Post by CaptSpify »

gotofritz wrote: post #231
CaptSpify wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wat It's insanely easier to filter those things out with email. It's been years since I've used FB, but I don't recall any very good filters for those types of things, and in fact they are incentivized to show you more of them.

No it isn't - not if the same person sends you a mixture of useless and usefule emails. And it doesn't solve the problem of your email adress being made public. With FB, you simply go on it when you feel like / have the time.

Yeah, actually, I do that all the time. Regex's are awesome, and so is spamassasin. There are plenty of other "rule-based" type tools out there too.

What is the problem with an email being public? I don't think I understand what you mean.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#233

Post by Teracotage »

Let's not forget that Alteryx sells the data of 123 Million American Households. That data Was Exposed Online https://www.upguard.com/breaches/cloud-leak-alteryx "the data was part of a product - the Alteryx Designer With Data - that sells for around $38,995 per license. In its own marketing for the Experian service, Alteryx notes that the database contains "consumer demographics, life event, direct response, property, and mortgage information for more than 235 million consumers." 'It included an extraordinary range of personal details on residents, including addresses, ethnicity, interests and hobbies, income, right down to what kind of mortgage the house was under and how many children lived at the property. In total, there were 248 different data fields for each household, according to the researcher who uncovered the leak data this week.

Whilst there were no names exposed, Chris Vickery, a cybersecurity researcher from UpGuard, told Forbes it was simple to determine who the data was linked to, either by looking at the details or by crosschecking with previous leaks. He found the data was sitting in an Amazon Web Services storage "bucket," left open to anyone with an account, which are free to obtain." https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/12/19/120m-...

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#234

Post by gotofritz »

CaptSpify wrote: post #232
gotofritz wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't - not if the same person sends you a mixture of useless and usefule emails. And it doesn't solve the problem of your email adress being made public. With FB, you simply go on it when you feel like / have the time.

Yeah, actually, I do that all the time. Regex's are awesome, and so is spamassasin. There are plenty of other "rule-based" type tools out there too. What is the problem with an email being public? I don't think I understand what you mean.

Yes, of course, we all have the time for endless fiddling with regular expressions... please

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#235

Post by bambax »

munificent wrote: post #194
bambax wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. What upset me though was the conclusion that it's "impossible" to leave Facebook. Everything is possible, including walking instead of driving, not eating meat, etc. Some things are more inconvenient than others, but if convenience trumps everything and you can't accept to make any sacrifice whatsoever then maybe you deserve to be taken advantage of.

I wish there was a name for this fallacy because it comes up so often. When you have a systemic problem, you do not have a viable solution if your solution requires the conscientious choices of every affected individual. If that worked, we would have already solved car accidents (obey all the traffic laws!), suicide (don't kill yourself!), obesity (don't eat too much unhealthy food), debt (don't spend more than you m…

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't regulate Facebook, as a society; sure we should, and let's try to do it. But that will take years, if not decades.

But as individuals, there is something we can do today: not use it. Why dismiss this very simple solution?

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#236

Post by CaptSpify »

gotofritz wrote: post #234
CaptSpify wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, actually, I do that all the time. Regex's are awesome, and so is spamassasin. There are plenty of other "rule-based" type tools out there too. What is the problem with an email being public? I don't think I understand what you mean.

Yes, of course, we all have the time for endless fiddling with regular expressions... please

I never said you had to. I provided a list of tools. You have yet to bring anything worthwhile to the discussion except to complain about tools you don't understand.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#237

Post by jackstraw14 »

gregknicholson wrote: post #108
jackstraw14 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they announced a totally different business model, you would trust them and go back? I’m just asking because that’s an interesting thought, making Facebook change. How can you trust them enough after quitting in protest? If we expect to have any success, people need to remove this idea that they need social media in their lives. All this is hypothetical too — last I checked Facebook brought in more cash than the 1…

> people need to remove this idea that they need social media in their lives People need to remove the idea that they need social media companies in their social media. Social media itself is fine. The problem is service providers whose interests aren't aligned with their users.

> Social media itself is fine.

This is debatable. A completely ethical social media service still has the ability to control perceptions and thus decisions on a large scale. I think the problem is that everyone can know this and still use Facebook multiple times daily. To know that they contributed to the election of Donald Trump simply by using Facebook, and then go on Facebook to complain about Donald Trump. Surely that must be the problem, whatever makes people knowingly contribute to their own destruction, somehow without ever thinking about it.

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#238

Post by cja »

"Should we all just leave Facebook? That may sound attractive but it is not a viable solution. In many countries, Facebook and its products simply are the internet. Some employers and landlords demand to see Facebook profiles, and there are increasingly vast swaths of public and civic life — from volunteer groups to political campaigns to marches and protests — that are accessible or organized only via Facebook."

I have a Facebook account so that I can participate in groups used by clubs I belong to and so that I can follow musical artists. My account has no friends and I have entered no information about myself.

Problem solved?

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#239

Post by munificent »

bambax wrote: post #235
munificent wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was a name for this fallacy because it comes up so often. When you have a systemic problem, you do not have a viable solution if your solution requires the conscientious choices of every affected individual. If that worked, we would have already solved car accidents (obey all the traffic laws!), suicide (don't kill yourself!), obesity (don't eat too much unhealthy food), debt (don't spend more than you m…

I don't mean to say that we shouldn't regulate Facebook, as a society ; sure we should, and let's try to do it. But that will take years, if not decades. But as individuals, there is something we can do today : not use it. Why dismiss this very simple solution?

I'm definitely not arguing that we shouldn't take individual steps that helps. But the parent comment says:

> if convenience trumps everything and you can't accept to make any sacrifice whatsoever then maybe you deserve to be taken advantage of.

Which basically sounds to me like, "If every fallible human on Earth can't individually decide to solve this problem, they don't deserve any solution."

Re: Facebook’s Surveillance Machine

#240

Post by ahussain »

paulie_a wrote: post #176
ahussain wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can deactivate your FB account and still use Messenger (and hence keep your contacts). You would lose Groups and Events though

Why would anyone want to use messenger, it is such a low quality app to be beyond useless.

Because all your friends already have Facebook accounts.
Post reply on HN