421–430 of 736 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t know about you but whenever I take a picture and share it with friends I trust that the company who’s picture I just gave two he’s going to make the best use of it on their platform. 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 t…
I mean Facebook might perform facial recognition on your photos and infer connections to other people you didn’t explicitly tell them about.
I mean that facebook might track your location and app launches and identify where you go on vacation and when you shop.
These are the kinds of thing nobody gave consent for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social graphs are really useful for detecting idea contagion though. Facebook obviously has the tools to fight propaganda, they have one of the most granular datasets of people data ever assembled in human history. They are just addicted to the ad dollars. It is a shame they killed their delightful API. Good riddance to them.
Seeing sharing in a social graph is easy. Defining what is "propaganda" is all but impossible.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon. “Sold and shipped by Amazon.com” means that Amazon actually bought that product and is storing it at their warehouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. Even in countries where iPhones are ubiquitous the cross-platform nature of Whatsapp and the fact that everyone from your friend to your grandmother is on it, makes it dominant. Yes you could use Slack to message your friends like you would on Whatsapp. The experience won’t be the…
> Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. do you have data to back up that claim?
iMessage no worky for groups because you'd be excluding the Android users. Group SMS... I don't think anyone over here is even aware that's an option. I only know about it from Americans on HN saying they use it.
Not sure if I am the only one feeling this way, but I hope for the death of facebook (at least in its current form). I feel they are a net negative for society and have done enough shady things to deserve that tag. Disinformation, election hacking, free basics (aka attempted non net neutral free internet in India) marketing it as a service to humanity. Zuck is undeniably smart but has failed time and time again to ma…
1) FB is not negative for society. It's just a social network. Most people use it because they like it. 2) It's not good when governments swoop in and shut down / mess around with private business in general. Of all the things the Feds could be doing, putting in privacy protections, Net Neutrality, protecting from scams would be much higher on this list.
Everything that follows is my opinion, as these are clearly questions without objective answers.
Facebook has become a massive force for division and the propagation of hate rhetoric. A lot of that comes from their own algorithms which basically create a catered stream of content to reinforce user's already held beliefs. This is not a FB specific issue, but they are probably the largest offender. I would argue they have been an absolutely massive negative for society.
I a vacuum you'd want private business left alone, but corporate power in America has reached absurd levels, and we desperately need the government to step in and do something. Long gone is the point at which labor organization could function as a counterweight to corporate power (in no small part because of the government going after it, but it doesn't really matter why). The insane consolidation of the economy has been a huge driving force for wage deflation, stagnation of productivity, and wealth inequality.
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…
There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.
When Facebook first went public, an older relative asked me if he should invest in Facebook. My only insight was being an internet user at the time and I said no, there was no reason that Facebook wouldn’t be another MySpace. Facebook's only value was their users and users were historically very finicky and moved around platforms at will. I argued that Facebook would make no money and wouldn’t be around in a couple o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB are pouring billions into oculus. They intend to operate it at a loss for a good 5 more years. Only when AR is a thing will they stat to push for profitability.
I think this is the problem. Operating at a loss while wiping out players without deep pockets to run at a loss. This should be illegal. Amazon and Uber have wiped out small players.