Don't be fooled. Zuckerberg is the head of the organization and has both created and internalized the economic logic of his organization, but the problem is systemic. If you put in someone else, they'll have a different style and might do a few things slightly different, but the economic logic is the same. Spying on the population is profitable, so such operations must be expanded to the maximum possible extent.
We can't simply undertake anti-trust litigation against these companies. We must go further and outlaw this business model.
> We must go further and outlaw this business model
Laws work best when they outlaw the harm, not the method. Strengthening privacy rights and pursuing antitrust action around that [1] will deter similar business models in the future. If Zuckerberg willfully violated the FTC consent decree, there are ways to make him pay that discincentivise similar behavior in future.
>We must go further and outlaw this business model.
We need to make social-discovery and network services a function of the OS and not a 3rd-party service over which the user has no agency.
In my opinion we are in this dilemma because OS vendors fell asleep at the wheel, and such things as a well-working, inbuilt common system service are instead a behind-the-walled-garden/-data-center service that has been usurped from the user.
So, same as it ever was: the corporate control over social networking (and lets just call it that, because that's what these systems are) is only 'a thing' because our systems - our computers - and the OS they run, out of the box - have been usurped for the purpose.
So, lets just continue with seeing iron-grip over single points of the network (i.e. Facebook, et al.) as the damage it is, indeed, and route around it.
i.e. we don't need legal harassment - just better system services which allow discovery and sharing with our peers without discarding near-full agency to a sinister, shady, corporate third-party.
It seems rather hard to find a legal way to outlaw the business model.
I wonder whether there's a way to make spying so unprofitable that the business model simply isn't attractive anymore?
Legislation that would force businesses to pay for collecting user data (maybe a tax on user data) might be a start, but I don't see how something like that could be implemented successfully.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who are opposed to government surveillance by accountable liberal constitutional democracies are OK with surveillance by unaccountable private interests who lie all the time and do harm in order to make money.
Pretty disingenuous. People can change. AND we dont have a timeline. Facebook kept pushing more and more info public, in an attempt to make facebook more useful. ( http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ ) Then they saw they went too far and quietly scaled it back. Four years later they got burned by mistakes they already knew they made and had already started taking action on.
There's multiple issues at foot: when he knew, how he reacted, and why he didn't disclose. He could have absolutely found out, ordered changes, and tried to keep it quiet, and later learned what a mistake it was to keep quiet.
Facebook is a one-man show. Zuckerberg owning 60% of the company and no one can say anything to him. Moreover, one man has the entire monopoly over our entire online social life. Other networks have come and failed. Anti Trust regulators should seriously open Facebook's file and break it.
> one man has the entire monopoly over our entire online social life
You chose that. I don't need Facebook/Insta/What's App to have an "online social life." Literally nobody is forced to participate in that nonsense. Use Snap, iMessage, Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, Slack, IRC, 500px, Vimeo, Signal, email, SMS, phone calls -- there are plenty of options.
FB, Insta, What's App aren't the entirety of the social media universe. You can't be "mad" at Facebook and then continue to use it. That's a bit hypocritical. If this situation is really that important, then stop using those services! It seems like the same thought patterns seen in abusive relationships: he beats me, but I can't live without him. That's bullshit. Leave those platforms. You see it as a "monopoly" because you allow it to be.
Honestly I don’t see the problem, Facebook’s privacy stance has been well known for years. I don’t use their product much because of this, but friends and family couldn’t care less. Their response is that they don’t care if someone reads their messages or tailors ads to them and no matter how hard I try it won’t change their minds. If you don’t like their privacy stance just don’t use the product, it’s not like there aren’t alternatives.
The media outrage feels the same as if they came out and said that it turns out Coca Cola knew its products could lead to obesity. Of course they did, and no reasonable person thought it didn’t. You can’t police every problematic product, at some point the end user has to take responsibility.
Facebook entered into a consent decree with the FTC [1]. (Facebook had to do this because it violated promises made to consumers.) Facebook then violated that consent decree. These e-mails may show Mark Zuckerberg--the Chairman, CEO and majority vote holder--complicit in those violations.
One can dig deeper into the privacy and antitrust issues [2], cultural issues and other matters. But at its core, this relates to their flagrantly violating a binding agreement with a federal regulator.
The individual criminal-law analogy would be violating one's parole agreement.
What's a reasonable person? Plenty of "reasonable" people drink Coke every day because the system indoctrinates otherwise rational people into believing that sugar isn't a poison comparable to alcohol. One of my friends, who is an attorney, still thinks that snack foods devoid of fat but loaded with sugar are somehow healthier. Speculating how a rational person would respond ideally isn't very useful in this situation because most people, including those who are well educated, are influenced heavily by their environment and, more specifically, peers and authority.
When you have Zuckerberg and journalists touting the end of privacy as being a good thing(there are plenty of articles and quotes from 10 years ago reflecting this sentiment), as well as surveillance gradually integrating into people's lives through convenience, you bet that most people are going to shrug their shoulders at privacy. Does the fact that people comply with invasion of privacy mean that the issue doesn't matter? Maybe it does if you don't think that the behavior of the masses can be manufactured.
I do agree with you that the current media outrage against social media, Silicon Valley, etc., is essentially the same kind of consent-manufacturing as when they were telling us that privacy is gone and that we should accept Facebook as the lesser evil because it "makes us more connected". I happen to agree with the current manufactured outrage, but I don't agree with the intent behind it. (which I suspect has to do with the old-guard media finally realizing that it's dying and it doesn't like the fact that social media has taken their audience and, hence, their money)
I haven't used Facebook in nearly 8 years, however to say there are alternatives is specious. For example, I have recently learned I missed my first high school reunion because it was only posted on Facebook. Unfortunately, there isn't another service out there that I could subscribe to that would ensure I receive such communication.
Agreed; it's frustrating and scary how difficult it is to get people to care about online privacy. If data harvesting/target advertising continues unchecked, we'll be living in an Orwellian surveillance state by 2030. That's not the scary part, though. The scary part is that the writing is on the wall and no one can be bothered to care (excluding HN users and the like - ya'll are awesome).
Also agree re:Coca Cola. However I also believe that we shouldn't blindly accept a status quo of "companies are inherently evil and value financial growth over the wellbeing/health/privacy of their customers". There are a few shining examples of business being conducted with true respect for customers. These ethical entities are few and far between, but they are worth their weight in gold and we should be mindful to vote for them with our wallets.
Getting aunt Sue to care about data harvesting and stopping the likes of Google/Amazon from taking over the world are both uphill battles. But something has to change, soon.
Not using Facebook isn't a meaningful way to opt-out. The better analogy is not soft drinks, but asbestos or CFCs. All that private information amassed, just waiting to fall into the wrong hands.
I don't think not using their products is a solution. Even if you don't use facebook, your friends and colleagues have your name and phone number on their phone, and your friends upload photos with your face in them. You may also share the wifi with family members so facebook knows where you are indirectly.
As we are all parts of the society that we can't escape from, regulation matters a lot to everybody who may or may not use facebook products.
obesity is one of primary public health concerns, with costs associated going into the tens if not hundreds of billions, affecting billions of people. Societies all over the globe try hard to tackle it, and you would have to make a very good case why you should not, or cannot police products that cause harm like this, we do it all the time.
If Facebook is the new Coke I'm not sure you're making the point you're intending to make. This just sounds like the stereotypical libertarian tech excuse about not taking responsibility for what is clearly becoming a pressing social concern.
The problem is that their indifference to how their data is used is starting to affect all of us. As evidenced by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it’s not just advertisers tailoring ads to you. You now have shady organizations trying alter elections and pushing propaganda into users.
If this leads to voters developing bizarre views of the world that influence who they vote for, then their carelessness becomes our problem.
Not all, but part of the outrage is political. A lot of (D) folks are looking for someone to blame for the current political climate. I'll stick my neck out a bit and wager that a lot of news outlets running privacy stories wouldn't think twice about selling their customers data for ad revenue.
There are lots of situations where you have no choice but use Facebook. Some schools, for example, communicate through Facebook groups. Your church might do the same thing. You may have relatives abroad you can only talk to through Facebook or WhatsApp, because that's all they know how to use. Your landlord or employer might demand to see your Facebook profile as a condition of getting a lease or a job.
The stance of "just opt out of stuff you don't like" bakes in a lot of assumptions about your position in the world, and trivializes real criticisms of Facebook by people who do not have the same choices you enjoy.
The article is misrepresentative. This was way back in an era where fb had slightly more open apis.
Of course some people were going to exploit that and break fbs own policies.
Cambridge did that and broke fbs rules.
Once it became more obvious that 3rd parties would break the rules fb adjusted their policy and closed the loophole.
The open nature of the policy was known to everyone on the planet including the ftc at the time. If those policies were problematic why wouldnt someone at the ftc say something?
Those whose job it is to regulate just sit there and watch for a decade before doing anything?
As someone mentioned above this is a systematic issue and a problem with the business model.
This is not some sneaky thing fb did on the side or behind closed doors. The apis were there for the public and everyone to see the whole time. Though there wwtr a few voiced concerns there certainly was not outrage.
I have several problems with fb but this specific issue is being misrepresented.
Part of me is glad that the public and governments are finally catching up to what FB has been doing for years now, but I'm worried that we don't have a better platform/solution that fills in the void without the risk of these privacy violations happening again.
Some of the decentralized networks are interesting and seem like a good way forward, but they're still far away from being adopted by non-technical users and masses at large.
This seems like it's not only a technical and UI/UX problem, but one of marketing as well. The advertising-based revenue model has certainly become hostile towards user privacy, and we should rethink that too.
Whatever comes after FB, I hope it addresses all of these issues, for the sake of all of us.
Honestly is anyone surprised by this? He controls everything and how will he not know their own policies?! Facebook needs a serious lesson from the regulators.
Not surprised, but I am afraid regulators will implement rules that would harm small businesses and startups much more than they would hurt FB. On the other hand, the market seems to be pretty much finished anyway. Unless someone comes up with a real decentralized solution that is able to compete with them.
I see a lot of these articles about Facebook and privacy lately, but I'm still wondering what, precisely, Facebook is doing that people object to and what kinds of changes would satisfy those who are upset.
Near as I can tell, this is about data in Facebook's databases finding its way to other organizations without the users' knowledge or consent. But the way this happens is pretty benign:
1. User installs Facebook app, and that app phones home with info about user's friends (who did not consent to this). This is what happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People started asking why apps are allowed to see info about the user's friends (who did not install the app). But to a programmer, the answer is obvious: it's the "app inherits owner's permissions" model that's been part of the Unix tradition for decades. Anyway, Facebook has since changed this behavior.
2. User adds some bots as friends (maybe because their profile photo is of a cute girl), and the bots phone home with public info about user's friends. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the "friends of friends" permission model. Facebook users can set "friends only" permissions to prevent this, but most don't bother.
Is it one of these two vectors that's getting people upset, or something else that I'm missing? Keep in mind that advertisers never get to see people's private info. They just make an ad and say something like "show this to people aged 18-25 who are into video games."
All organizations, no matter if they are public or private, need checks and balances at the top.
I predict that legislation will become the de facto check on FB and there will be many negative unintended consequences for the rest of the tech industry, harming companies who are ethical stewards of privacy.
You need the help of an hacker? Contact [email protected] he helped me out I was able to check my husband device without him knowing he is good and reliable.
You need the help of an hacker? Contact [email protected] he helped me out I was able to check my husband device without him knowing he is good and reliable.
Given the paywall, I didn't get the pleasure of reading the full article. Based on the title and opening paragraphs however, I don't think this is really news. Especially in light of the recent statement by Facebook counsel Orin Snyder: "There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy" [1]
In fact, there has been legal statements on the privacy of Facebook floating around for awhile. One judge, in 2013, explicitly said there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.[2]
Zuckerburg has also previously made statements regarding his disdain for privacy, such as: "'They "trust me." Dumb f--ks'" [3]
In the wake of the mobile phone number sharing with your friends list by default, Mark had this to say: "We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do." [4]
I could go on ad nauseum, and I'm sure none of these quotes are new to anyone. So, I just don't get why it is news that Zuckerberg was aware of questionable practices.
Of course he was aware of them. He championed them.
This seems to be the one guy on the planet who surpasses Trump in his ability to get into the news every 2 days. No tweeting required even. How are his staff not just jumping out of windows? I mean it's been one article after the other for 3 years now. Almost impressed by the endurance.
He also openly ignores requests to testify in front of UK & Canadian parliamentary committees...
Think about that for a minute. Someone who controls 3b people. Runs psychological experiments using AI. Bans accounts of people who violate corporate-created policies that weren't debated or voted on by the public. Violates FCC settlements. And then refuses to be held accountable - or answer questions- from first world, democratic governments.
[+] [-] tehjoker|6 years ago|reply
We can't simply undertake anti-trust litigation against these companies. We must go further and outlaw this business model.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|6 years ago|reply
Laws work best when they outlaw the harm, not the method. Strengthening privacy rights and pursuing antitrust action around that [1] will deter similar business models in the future. If Zuckerberg willfully violated the FTC consent decree, there are ways to make him pay that discincentivise similar behavior in future.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/opinion/privacy-antitrust...
[+] [-] fit2rule|6 years ago|reply
We need to make social-discovery and network services a function of the OS and not a 3rd-party service over which the user has no agency.
In my opinion we are in this dilemma because OS vendors fell asleep at the wheel, and such things as a well-working, inbuilt common system service are instead a behind-the-walled-garden/-data-center service that has been usurped from the user.
So, same as it ever was: the corporate control over social networking (and lets just call it that, because that's what these systems are) is only 'a thing' because our systems - our computers - and the OS they run, out of the box - have been usurped for the purpose.
So, lets just continue with seeing iron-grip over single points of the network (i.e. Facebook, et al.) as the damage it is, indeed, and route around it.
i.e. we don't need legal harassment - just better system services which allow discovery and sharing with our peers without discarding near-full agency to a sinister, shady, corporate third-party.
[+] [-] starbugs|6 years ago|reply
I wonder whether there's a way to make spying so unprofitable that the business model simply isn't attractive anymore?
Legislation that would force businesses to pay for collecting user data (maybe a tax on user data) might be a start, but I don't see how something like that could be implemented successfully.
[+] [-] bongobongo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinewurst|6 years ago|reply
Who thinks Zuckerberg has (or ever had) _any_ commitment to user privacy?
[+] [-] chipperyman573|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakear|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] basch|6 years ago|reply
There's multiple issues at foot: when he knew, how he reacted, and why he didn't disclose. He could have absolutely found out, ordered changes, and tried to keep it quiet, and later learned what a mistake it was to keep quiet.
[+] [-] ishan1121|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briandear|6 years ago|reply
You chose that. I don't need Facebook/Insta/What's App to have an "online social life." Literally nobody is forced to participate in that nonsense. Use Snap, iMessage, Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, Slack, IRC, 500px, Vimeo, Signal, email, SMS, phone calls -- there are plenty of options.
FB, Insta, What's App aren't the entirety of the social media universe. You can't be "mad" at Facebook and then continue to use it. That's a bit hypocritical. If this situation is really that important, then stop using those services! It seems like the same thought patterns seen in abusive relationships: he beats me, but I can't live without him. That's bullshit. Leave those platforms. You see it as a "monopoly" because you allow it to be.
[+] [-] a13n|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camjohnson26|6 years ago|reply
The media outrage feels the same as if they came out and said that it turns out Coca Cola knew its products could lead to obesity. Of course they did, and no reasonable person thought it didn’t. You can’t police every problematic product, at some point the end user has to take responsibility.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|6 years ago|reply
Facebook entered into a consent decree with the FTC [1]. (Facebook had to do this because it violated promises made to consumers.) Facebook then violated that consent decree. These e-mails may show Mark Zuckerberg--the Chairman, CEO and majority vote holder--complicit in those violations.
One can dig deeper into the privacy and antitrust issues [2], cultural issues and other matters. But at its core, this relates to their flagrantly violating a binding agreement with a federal regulator.
The individual criminal-law analogy would be violating one's parole agreement.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/faceb...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/opinion/privacy-antitrust...
[+] [-] ravenstine|6 years ago|reply
What's a reasonable person? Plenty of "reasonable" people drink Coke every day because the system indoctrinates otherwise rational people into believing that sugar isn't a poison comparable to alcohol. One of my friends, who is an attorney, still thinks that snack foods devoid of fat but loaded with sugar are somehow healthier. Speculating how a rational person would respond ideally isn't very useful in this situation because most people, including those who are well educated, are influenced heavily by their environment and, more specifically, peers and authority.
When you have Zuckerberg and journalists touting the end of privacy as being a good thing(there are plenty of articles and quotes from 10 years ago reflecting this sentiment), as well as surveillance gradually integrating into people's lives through convenience, you bet that most people are going to shrug their shoulders at privacy. Does the fact that people comply with invasion of privacy mean that the issue doesn't matter? Maybe it does if you don't think that the behavior of the masses can be manufactured.
I do agree with you that the current media outrage against social media, Silicon Valley, etc., is essentially the same kind of consent-manufacturing as when they were telling us that privacy is gone and that we should accept Facebook as the lesser evil because it "makes us more connected". I happen to agree with the current manufactured outrage, but I don't agree with the intent behind it. (which I suspect has to do with the old-guard media finally realizing that it's dying and it doesn't like the fact that social media has taken their audience and, hence, their money)
[+] [-] rjkennedy98|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Liquix|6 years ago|reply
Also agree re:Coca Cola. However I also believe that we shouldn't blindly accept a status quo of "companies are inherently evil and value financial growth over the wellbeing/health/privacy of their customers". There are a few shining examples of business being conducted with true respect for customers. These ethical entities are few and far between, but they are worth their weight in gold and we should be mindful to vote for them with our wallets.
Getting aunt Sue to care about data harvesting and stopping the likes of Google/Amazon from taking over the world are both uphill battles. But something has to change, soon.
[+] [-] jchrisa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wqnt|6 years ago|reply
As we are all parts of the society that we can't escape from, regulation matters a lot to everybody who may or may not use facebook products.
[+] [-] Barrin92|6 years ago|reply
If Facebook is the new Coke I'm not sure you're making the point you're intending to make. This just sounds like the stereotypical libertarian tech excuse about not taking responsibility for what is clearly becoming a pressing social concern.
[+] [-] enumjorge|6 years ago|reply
If this leads to voters developing bizarre views of the world that influence who they vote for, then their carelessness becomes our problem.
[+] [-] la_barba|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idlewords|6 years ago|reply
The stance of "just opt out of stuff you don't like" bakes in a lot of assumptions about your position in the world, and trivializes real criticisms of Facebook by people who do not have the same choices you enjoy.
[+] [-] rhizome|6 years ago|reply
>it turns out Coca Cola knew its products could lead to obesity. Of course they did, and no reasonable person thought it didn’t.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2005/02/15/51...
[+] [-] bongobongo|6 years ago|reply
Coca-Cola has just 40% of the non-alcoholic beverages global market share.
And as others have pointed out, "don't use Facebook" doesn't solve the problem of all the data they already have on you and will never destroy.
[+] [-] baby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonnyblarney|6 years ago|reply
Of course some people were going to exploit that and break fbs own policies.
Cambridge did that and broke fbs rules.
Once it became more obvious that 3rd parties would break the rules fb adjusted their policy and closed the loophole.
The open nature of the policy was known to everyone on the planet including the ftc at the time. If those policies were problematic why wouldnt someone at the ftc say something?
Those whose job it is to regulate just sit there and watch for a decade before doing anything?
As someone mentioned above this is a systematic issue and a problem with the business model.
This is not some sneaky thing fb did on the side or behind closed doors. The apis were there for the public and everyone to see the whole time. Though there wwtr a few voiced concerns there certainly was not outrage.
I have several problems with fb but this specific issue is being misrepresented.
[+] [-] bitxbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imiric|6 years ago|reply
Some of the decentralized networks are interesting and seem like a good way forward, but they're still far away from being adopted by non-technical users and masses at large.
This seems like it's not only a technical and UI/UX problem, but one of marketing as well. The advertising-based revenue model has certainly become hostile towards user privacy, and we should rethink that too.
Whatever comes after FB, I hope it addresses all of these issues, for the sake of all of us.
[+] [-] thwythwy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vijaybritto|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starbugs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joker3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoncake|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thwythwy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Meekro|6 years ago|reply
Near as I can tell, this is about data in Facebook's databases finding its way to other organizations without the users' knowledge or consent. But the way this happens is pretty benign:
1. User installs Facebook app, and that app phones home with info about user's friends (who did not consent to this). This is what happened in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People started asking why apps are allowed to see info about the user's friends (who did not install the app). But to a programmer, the answer is obvious: it's the "app inherits owner's permissions" model that's been part of the Unix tradition for decades. Anyway, Facebook has since changed this behavior.
2. User adds some bots as friends (maybe because their profile photo is of a cute girl), and the bots phone home with public info about user's friends. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the "friends of friends" permission model. Facebook users can set "friends only" permissions to prevent this, but most don't bother.
Is it one of these two vectors that's getting people upset, or something else that I'm missing? Keep in mind that advertisers never get to see people's private info. They just make an ad and say something like "show this to people aged 18-25 who are into video games."
[+] [-] willyg123|6 years ago|reply
I predict that legislation will become the de facto check on FB and there will be many negative unintended consequences for the rest of the tech industry, harming companies who are ethical stewards of privacy.
[+] [-] inetknght|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosh876|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosh876|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmurthy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ziddoap|6 years ago|reply
In fact, there has been legal statements on the privacy of Facebook floating around for awhile. One judge, in 2013, explicitly said there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.[2]
Zuckerburg has also previously made statements regarding his disdain for privacy, such as: "'They "trust me." Dumb f--ks'" [3]
In the wake of the mobile phone number sharing with your friends list by default, Mark had this to say: "We realize that people will probably criticize us for this for a long time, but we just believe that this is the right thing to do." [4]
I could go on ad nauseum, and I'm sure none of these quotes are new to anyone. So, I just don't get why it is news that Zuckerberg was aware of questionable practices.
Of course he was aware of them. He championed them.
[1]https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-reportedly-thinks-theres-... [2]https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/120253289935... [3,4]https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg...
[+] [-] kodz4|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3xblah|6 years ago|reply
Add ?mod=rsswn to the end of the URL.
[+] [-] baby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrnobody_67|6 years ago|reply
Think about that for a minute. Someone who controls 3b people. Runs psychological experiments using AI. Bans accounts of people who violate corporate-created policies that weren't debated or voted on by the public. Violates FCC settlements. And then refuses to be held accountable - or answer questions- from first world, democratic governments.
[+] [-] malloreon|6 years ago|reply
None of these people are being forced to work there. They choose to. They are just as responsible.
[+] [-] trpc|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]