- Focusing on adding e2e encryption for messaging services serves as a nice deflector for FB's privacy issues. Their advertising systems aren't going to change in terms of efficacy and revenue potential if private messages between users are inaccessible to Facebook. I'd be surprised if they're using this data anyway, but it's Facebook, so who knows. In any case, expect the messaging to focus on increasing privacy through message and video encryption, which completely ignores the underlying issue of profile-building and behavior modification that Facebook's non-messaging platforms allow, and which I didn't seem to hear any plans around addressing.
- IMHO, pretty much all posturing around privacy by Facebook should not be taken seriously until they announce a change to their business model. Since they haven't, it doesn't take much effort to tease out the rest: their business model relies upon surveiling user behavior and selling behavior modification products, so you can expect no announcements around product changes that would undermine those efforts significantly in the name of privacy until their business model changes. Everything until then is just at best noise, at worst dishonest framing to take the heat off of them by those who are ignorant of the underlying dynamics, like regulators or the general public.
Just a note: they do "read" your messages, for example to suggest Spotify music to you. Not sure if that's still a thing, that came out around the same time I stopped using FB.
Does your reasoning apply to other companies? Coca-cola, for example, is very interested in building profiles and modifying behavior. I estimate they're much less sophisticated w/r/t building profiles (although if you think in terms of flavors, instead of demographics, perhaps not...) They are definitely very effective in terms of behavior modification. The product does significant harm. It also hijacks an evolutionary flaw (people like other people's feedback=FB, people like sweet things=CC).
> surveiling user behavior and selling behavior modification
This is fine in my book as long as they involve more sociologists/psychologists in the process, are transparent about unintended consequences and what behavior modification they are indulging in.
The thing that is becoming clearer and clearer from the data accumulating about people's behavior is left to themselves ALL people have low awareness of their own damaging behavior. Whether it's to themselves, their families or communities. Those that do have some awareness have little clue about how to climb out of holes. Spotting issues early, alerting/educating people about them and showing them what options they have to improve their own behavior is a huge opportunity to do good.
>Focusing on adding e2e encryption for messaging services serves as a nice deflector for FB's privacy issues.
Although it's not all that's desired, it's something. After all don't forget that entities much less legal than Facebook are after your data (like the NSA).
> “It’s going to take time,” Zuckerberg said of Facebook’s privacy-focused future. “I’m sure we’re going to keep on unearthing old issues for a while, so it may feel like we’re not making progress at first. But I think that we’ve shown, time and again as a company, that we can do what it takes to evolve and build the products that people want.”
IOW, they'll talk about privacy for a while until everyone stops talking about how evil FB is. Then they'll slowly stop talking about it and work their way back down to where they are now. All the while not actually doing anything at all to change.
It's about FB/Zuckerberg redefining "privacy" as being between FB users and talking to that. They don't have to work their way back down from that. Privacy between users and FB (e.g. none, even negative) isn't mentioned at all.
Have there ever been any effective privacy limitations that Facebook placed on itself that have done a thing?
We've seen internal memos raising questions effectively ignored. Facebook's own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to users. Their own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to companies that partner with, specifically lie about what level of access they're providing. Their own actions seem to indicate they don't seem to care even when they operate on another platform such as when they released a traffic monitoring VPN on Apple's app store, it was removed by Apple... so they just renamed it and put it out there again.
Facebook as an entity seems antithetical to privacy at its core. It couldn't have grown into what it is with limits... I can't imagine they are capable of being anything else.
Depending on the definition of "privacy". Over time they have limited access to their APIs , so that a new "Cambridge Analytica" has a harder time to extract larger amounts of data.
Of course that serves their business: in the beginning they had to be the hub everybody connects to, to get as much attention as possible. Now their business is to monopolize the data, so that ads are sold via their systems.
Framing that as privacy is a great strategy, from Facebook's perspective.
> “A lot of the focus is on changing the way that consumer-to-consumer interaction works,” said Greg Sparrow, senior vice president and general manager at CompliancePoint, a data privacy and security consultancy. “While that is laudable and it’s great that they’re doing that, but fundamentally it doesn’t address the problem on the back-end side, which is businesses gaining access to this information and how they’re using it from a data monetization perspective.”
Bingo. Most people on Facebook are well aware of how "public" their posts are but aren't aware of how public their personal information is to advertisers. Facebook's new "privacy" focus isn't intended to solve the platform's real privacy problem, it's intended to distract from it.
> Most people on Facebook are well aware of how "public" their posts are but aren't aware of how public this personal information is to advertisers.
How public is it, then? As a Facebook advertiser I've never seen this elusive personal information collected from the masses, available for indiscriminate pickings. Facebook only sells access to eyeballs coupled with anonymized targeting based on this personal information you refer to, not the information itself.
Isn't this at least the 3rd time he says these things?
Unless there is a complete engineering stop and development of privacy policies and tools, and review of all existing tools and processes the necessary cultural change will not occur.
Facebook would have the money to do that and possibly have positive change throughout the industry if they would do something like this. Like Microsoft made the Secure Development Cycle a thing in the early 2000s.
But I'm already reading news how now all Facebook messaging platforms will be able to send messages to each other - sure thing that that violates everything WhatsApp stood for in past. Also, tons of privacy questions that come up with such merges of technology and the data it connects.
Don't forget that Zuckerberg started out making an app to get laid. It's a long, long road from there to preaching ethics and whether or not he actually has reformed, he has not exhibited that reformation.
"Privacy?" Hah! More like "plausible deniability for fueling ethnic violence." If they can't read the messages, then they aren't responsible. Meanwhile, most of the useful ad targeting data is in the metadata, which they still collect. They're truly shameless.
This is also funny, in a grim sort of way:
> Late last year, Facebook admitted that Clear History is taking longer than expected -- it turns out that browsing data, which the company uses to help send more targeted advertising to users on its social platforms -- is more deeply ingrained into Facebook’s systems than anyone realized. Simply finding and deleting the correct data without disrupting Facebook’s advertising and analytics businesses has been a big enough challenge that the product hasn’t gotten off the ground...
If Facebook were serious about this, they could easily implement a "nuke all of my data" option that would wipe all of your history. Not just the stuff gathered from beacons, but everything, so people could start over from scratch with their new understanding of how Facebook operates.
But they clearly aren't serious. I suspect that the only real "clear history" option will be exporting your data, deleting your profile, and making a new one, preferably using a new email address from a public computer.
Facebook will not change until there is sufficient external pressure - be that an authority, competition, etc. - to force it to change. End of. We've seen the same story for the last couple of years; Facebook is bad with privacy, Facebook makes token attempt to improve privacy, Facebook gets busted for being bad with privacy, and repeat.
You're correct in that it is focused on making the user's brain feel good. I think a more accurate comparison, however, would be casino gambling. The slot machines ding at you and flash lights and make your brain release the dopamine. Facebook has the users on a similar bent via notification graphics and sounds, feeds, and various other things. It's the same idea though, and it is legitimately addictive (I've seen many family members get taken in by it to the point where they get anxiety if they can't constantly check their notifications or whatever).
I have been putting thought into a social platform that would truly be for users and not just a gamification of attention.
- First it would have a cost, either in money to pay someone to develop/run the platform or in time/knowledge to tinker with some open-source solution. That shouldn't be a problem as the target market is the group of people who are making a conscious choice to dodge the ad platform. BUT it does severely reduce the network effect, possibly down to the point of becoming an ultra-specialized niche club.
- Then, there's the point you bring up: you'll essentially be trying to sell steamed broccoli inside of a candy store.
This is analogous to Google declaring one fine day that its getting out the advertising business, but adding security features to do so. MZ describes steps to improve security and retooling history features to have less immortality and permanence, but people already share facebook posts and profiles as images, not only as stateful markup. People will continue to expose each other and there's essentially no way Facebook can guarantee privacy in that regard. Limiting partner access to user data will ultimately be a trade-off of what they can afford to lose and that's not a commitment to privacy either.
His proposed strategy doesn't really makes sense and seems like misdirection and lip-service. You can't change the way people use Facebook, but you can forgo any pretense of privacy, which may be the only thing that can honestly and realistically be done.
If you have made a pact with FIST (FB/Insta/Snap/Twitter) or the other members of the gang, then it is akin to jumping in a pool of sharks after cutting yourself open ─ not even the friendliest of sharks is going to resist the urge to rip you apart and feed itself!
These breaches and preaches are now a daily occurrence, having found a new level of tedium, especially since overtly parasitical behaviour has long been admitted and identified within certain ecosystems.
Like investments, the implicit question of whether one can trust Facebook (etc.) going forward is actually orthogonal to their current or previous behaviour. Whilst it might inform and be predictive to a great degree, there is no way to bind "future Facebook" to any real guarantees. In Debian licensing, we call this the "tentacles of evil" test..
I am indifferent to FB. They started with a promise, then they realized the money potential and went ahead abusing it. They were caught and faced some flak. They realized that people have started caring about privacy. Hence this new pitch. I don't say the Mark Zuckerberg is evil, he himself is helpless. He can't change the FB DNA overnight, it would risk the very existence of the company. In summary, don't expect things to change anytime soon.
He's arguably the most powerful and protected CEO in America. He literally cannot be ousted from FB by the board.
If one of the most powerful executives in America can't bring about wholesale change to the business and is truly helpless as you describe, who else could possibly come in and make a difference?
If the company's existence is threatened, so be it. They're in this position due to the actions they've chosen, and immortality is guaranteed for no one.
No, he is evil. He called people who gave FB data "... dumb f#@$s" back when he was 19. It was just that in the beginning they weren't pushing the monetization yet. Now that is all it is about and people are starting to understand how they are being exploited. The only thing that has changed is that you are aware. HE is the FB DNA.
"Evil" is a a loaded term. I think it's more accurate to say that Zuckerberg is knowingly deceptive in an effort to ensure that Facebook can continue to engage in pervasive surveillance without too much public outrage.
[+] [-] gfodor|7 years ago|reply
- Focusing on adding e2e encryption for messaging services serves as a nice deflector for FB's privacy issues. Their advertising systems aren't going to change in terms of efficacy and revenue potential if private messages between users are inaccessible to Facebook. I'd be surprised if they're using this data anyway, but it's Facebook, so who knows. In any case, expect the messaging to focus on increasing privacy through message and video encryption, which completely ignores the underlying issue of profile-building and behavior modification that Facebook's non-messaging platforms allow, and which I didn't seem to hear any plans around addressing.
- IMHO, pretty much all posturing around privacy by Facebook should not be taken seriously until they announce a change to their business model. Since they haven't, it doesn't take much effort to tease out the rest: their business model relies upon surveiling user behavior and selling behavior modification products, so you can expect no announcements around product changes that would undermine those efforts significantly in the name of privacy until their business model changes. Everything until then is just at best noise, at worst dishonest framing to take the heat off of them by those who are ignorant of the underlying dynamics, like regulators or the general public.
[+] [-] hasbroslasher|7 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16143354/facebook-messeng...
[+] [-] rando444|7 years ago|reply
This does not make messages inaccessible to Facebook, as they control both endpoints.
[+] [-] citrablue|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] politician|7 years ago|reply
Excellent description of personalized advertising.
[+] [-] kodz4|7 years ago|reply
This is fine in my book as long as they involve more sociologists/psychologists in the process, are transparent about unintended consequences and what behavior modification they are indulging in.
The thing that is becoming clearer and clearer from the data accumulating about people's behavior is left to themselves ALL people have low awareness of their own damaging behavior. Whether it's to themselves, their families or communities. Those that do have some awareness have little clue about how to climb out of holes. Spotting issues early, alerting/educating people about them and showing them what options they have to improve their own behavior is a huge opportunity to do good.
[+] [-] whatshisface|7 years ago|reply
Although it's not all that's desired, it's something. After all don't forget that entities much less legal than Facebook are after your data (like the NSA).
[+] [-] throwaway55554|7 years ago|reply
IOW, they'll talk about privacy for a while until everyone stops talking about how evil FB is. Then they'll slowly stop talking about it and work their way back down to where they are now. All the while not actually doing anything at all to change.
[+] [-] pinewurst|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zelphyr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielcampos93|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
We've seen internal memos raising questions effectively ignored. Facebook's own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to users. Their own actions seem to indicate there is no limit to what they'll do to companies that partner with, specifically lie about what level of access they're providing. Their own actions seem to indicate they don't seem to care even when they operate on another platform such as when they released a traffic monitoring VPN on Apple's app store, it was removed by Apple... so they just renamed it and put it out there again.
Facebook as an entity seems antithetical to privacy at its core. It couldn't have grown into what it is with limits... I can't imagine they are capable of being anything else.
[+] [-] johannes1234321|7 years ago|reply
Of course that serves their business: in the beginning they had to be the hub everybody connects to, to get as much attention as possible. Now their business is to monopolize the data, so that ads are sold via their systems.
Framing that as privacy is a great strategy, from Facebook's perspective.
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
I actually think there is a limit. That limit is that they won't do anything that would cause an exodus of users.
It like the old saying: "find the amount a tyranny that people will tolerate, and you've found the amount of tyranny that they live under"
[+] [-] elliekelly|7 years ago|reply
Bingo. Most people on Facebook are well aware of how "public" their posts are but aren't aware of how public their personal information is to advertisers. Facebook's new "privacy" focus isn't intended to solve the platform's real privacy problem, it's intended to distract from it.
Edit: Spelling
[+] [-] omarchowdhury|7 years ago|reply
How public is it, then? As a Facebook advertiser I've never seen this elusive personal information collected from the masses, available for indiscriminate pickings. Facebook only sells access to eyeballs coupled with anonymized targeting based on this personal information you refer to, not the information itself.
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
Unless there is a complete engineering stop and development of privacy policies and tools, and review of all existing tools and processes the necessary cultural change will not occur.
Facebook would have the money to do that and possibly have positive change throughout the industry if they would do something like this. Like Microsoft made the Secure Development Cycle a thing in the early 2000s.
But I'm already reading news how now all Facebook messaging platforms will be able to send messages to each other - sure thing that that violates everything WhatsApp stood for in past. Also, tons of privacy questions that come up with such merges of technology and the data it connects.
[+] [-] blablablerg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] airstrike|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|7 years ago|reply
Don't forget that Zuckerberg started out making an app to get laid. It's a long, long road from there to preaching ethics and whether or not he actually has reformed, he has not exhibited that reformation.
[+] [-] username223|7 years ago|reply
This is also funny, in a grim sort of way:
> Late last year, Facebook admitted that Clear History is taking longer than expected -- it turns out that browsing data, which the company uses to help send more targeted advertising to users on its social platforms -- is more deeply ingrained into Facebook’s systems than anyone realized. Simply finding and deleting the correct data without disrupting Facebook’s advertising and analytics businesses has been a big enough challenge that the product hasn’t gotten off the ground...
If Facebook were serious about this, they could easily implement a "nuke all of my data" option that would wipe all of your history. Not just the stuff gathered from beacons, but everything, so people could start over from scratch with their new understanding of how Facebook operates.
But they clearly aren't serious. I suspect that the only real "clear history" option will be exporting your data, deleting your profile, and making a new one, preferably using a new email address from a public computer.
[+] [-] doctorRetro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OrgNet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skilled|7 years ago|reply
As a result, it's not that you can't make your own social platform, it's that your platform lacks critical components for instant gratification.
Maybe I am wrong though. Open to discussion for my perspective.
[+] [-] moonshinefe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] athenot|7 years ago|reply
- First it would have a cost, either in money to pay someone to develop/run the platform or in time/knowledge to tinker with some open-source solution. That shouldn't be a problem as the target market is the group of people who are making a conscious choice to dodge the ad platform. BUT it does severely reduce the network effect, possibly down to the point of becoming an ultra-specialized niche club.
- Then, there's the point you bring up: you'll essentially be trying to sell steamed broccoli inside of a candy store.
[+] [-] kensign|7 years ago|reply
His proposed strategy doesn't really makes sense and seems like misdirection and lip-service. You can't change the way people use Facebook, but you can forgo any pretense of privacy, which may be the only thing that can honestly and realistically be done.
[+] [-] johnnycab|7 years ago|reply
These breaches and preaches are now a daily occurrence, having found a new level of tedium, especially since overtly parasitical behaviour has long been admitted and identified within certain ecosystems.
[+] [-] lamby|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangerboysteve|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftoman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powera|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yourduskquibble|7 years ago|reply
How would you determine if the new user interface provided (or not) any [new or perceived] level of privacy?
[+] [-] sidcool|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] save_ferris|7 years ago|reply
If one of the most powerful executives in America can't bring about wholesale change to the business and is truly helpless as you describe, who else could possibly come in and make a difference?
If the company's existence is threatened, so be it. They're in this position due to the actions they've chosen, and immortality is guaranteed for no one.
[+] [-] snarf21|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|7 years ago|reply
"Evil" is a a loaded term. I think it's more accurate to say that Zuckerberg is knowingly deceptive in an effort to ensure that Facebook can continue to engage in pervasive surveillance without too much public outrage.
[+] [-] wavefunction|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bg4|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blunte|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fromthestart|7 years ago|reply
There seem to be absolutely no consequences to their repeated misdirections and outright lies.
[+] [-] Simon_says|7 years ago|reply