291–300 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assume that they have such shadow profiles...I have yet to see any evidence of it though
Zuck specifically answered questions covering shadow profiles during his inquisition. They exist and are used even if that user is not a Facebook user. It’s not an unknown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't trying to sell you anything. They are selling you to others. They are selling you to not just advertisers but selling your profile to companies that are able to use your profiled information to make their own decisions about things. It's not just about advertisements. Imagine if you didn't serve a single advertisement and instead bought profiling information about people. You could use that profile inform…
I've been (down voted) for saying this before: it is not just ads that they are selling. The big money is going to be selling your profile to everyone, including insurers - health, auto, home, etc. Good luck getting a good deal when they know how much you drink and the food you eat. To the government - eventually that guaranteed Social Security and 401k will be means tested, and it appears you're spending on luxuries…
That would go both ways, right? With the extra information, insurance companies would be _more_ keen on insuring those who behave in a way that makes insurance payouts less likely.
Believe me folks, just delete facebook. I've been so much happier since I did.
Did you archive your data before deleting? If so, how did it work? I haven't signed in for years, but I have stuff on there going back to high school (back when you had to have an education email address to make an account, now that I think about it) which I'm sure would be fun to look through down the road.
Things like this make me very, very angry! So many missteps over the years. So many things bungled. So many dark patterns to fool users. Yet, where is the mass exodus of employees from Facebook? If you're still working in any company that Facebook owns in the technology or privacy or legal front, don't you realize what harm you're contributing to? And you're still ok with that? Don't you have a choice? I'm appalled t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR talks about "executing a contract, which includes the provision of services" (not the exact wording, but something like that). So if you define "using the social network in return for having targeted ads displayed" as the contract, it is necessary. > just that not every avenue of funding is allowed Funding by targeted ads isn't illegal last time I checked.
Performance of the contract does not mean whatever they want it to mean. Here's the ICO FAQ on the GDPR (emphasis mine): "The processing must be necessary to deliver your side of the contract with this particular person. If the processing is only necessary to maintain your business model more generally, this lawful basis will not apply and you should consider another lawful basis, such as legitimate interests." https…
If this is correct, this is a major blow for US industries.
I hope the US follows suit with Europe rather than attempting to start another trade war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government which we're "stuck" with, and which we shouldn't trust because it's actively dangerous to our freedoms, is what's supposed to protect those freedoms from predatory companies? How's that working out for us?
Which is why I argue they are oftentimes less trustworthy than corporations due to the latter's more limited scope. I'm not clear on the argument you are making here. Regardless, the one I am making is that companies are often more trustworthy than governments (the original question) especially since there is technically a level higher in the authority hierarchy.
Maybe my premises and categories blind me to that risk in some way; I'll certainly cede that possibility. I'd be curious to see people who think the way you're describing do the same, vis à vis theirs.
That's the trouble with articles of faith, though: for the people who hold them, they're axioms; for the rest of us, they're implicit, unsupported premises to someone else's argument.
Believe me folks, just delete facebook. I've been so much happier since I did.
Did you archive your data before deleting? If so, how did it work? I haven't signed in for years, but I have stuff on there going back to high school (back when you had to have an education email address to make an account, now that I think about it) which I'm sure would be fun to look through down the road.
Things like this make me very, very angry! So many missteps over the years. So many things bungled. So many dark patterns to fool users. Yet, where is the mass exodus of employees from Facebook? If you're still working in any company that Facebook owns in the technology or privacy or legal front, don't you realize what harm you're contributing to? And you're still ok with that? Don't you have a choice? I'm appalled t…
Even though you never hear the counterpoint on HN, it’s important to remember that FB’s behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad - people can have different views on these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Predatory interest rates frankly don't concern or particularly bother me. I think, for me, that only becomes a point of concern if a person is simply mentally unfit to make such decisions for themselves. In such cases the general guidance that someone else deemed fit should be responsible for that person's decisions applies, which goes back to the point you made earlier.
Even when those usurious, predatory rates are disproportionately charged to poorer people, who can afford to bear them less? Because that's how it works: price discrimination against the people least able to bear it. But, hey. Why should I care, if I'm not getting charged those rates, right?
We’re getting pretty off-topic though, so if you’d like to talk more, go ahead and shoot me an email (r at ovao dot la).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even when those usurious, predatory rates are disproportionately charged to poorer people, who can afford to bear them less? Because that's how it works: price discrimination against the people least able to bear it. But, hey. Why should I care, if I'm not getting charged those rates, right?
Given that a significant component to the determination of interest rates is risk, I don’t think one could reasonably expect a non-public system of lending to operate any other way. We’re getting pretty off-topic though, so if you’d like to talk more, go ahead and shoot me an email (r at ovao dot la).