Slashdot Mirror


Why No One Trusts Facebook To Power the Future

redletterdave (2493036) writes "Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience—photos (Instagram), status updates (Facebook), location services (Places)—but now, Facebook is transitioning from a simple social network to a full-fledged technology company that rivals Google, moonshot for moonshot. Yet, it's Facebook's corporate control of traffic that leads many to distrust the company. In a sense, people are stuck. When the time comes for someone to abandon Facebook, whether over privacy concerns or frustration with the company, Facebook intentionally makes it hard to leave. Even if you delete your account, your ghost remains—even when you die, Facebook can still make money off you. And that's not behavior fit for a company that's poised to take over the future."

218 comments

  1. Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How quaint...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How quaint...

      Settling for the lesser of two evils is not only a false defense, but a mindset of the enslaved.

      And ironically, replace "Facebook" with "Hollywood" in the summary above. When I read about profiting after you die, the first thing I thought of were celebrities. Death is not a guarantee of limited revenue. And because of narcissism within social media, everyone is in fact a celebrity now. At least according to Facebook who want to immortalize you forever within their revenue engine.

    2. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, there's at least one sentence that's essentially different: "even when you die, Facebook can still make money off you."

      Google doesn't (as far as I know) sell user information to advertisers. They exclusively use their own analytics; all an advertiser can do is submit their target demographics and keywords, and let Google do the math. While they're both huge storehouses of personal information, the big G is monolithic and generally non-porous—unless you're a malignant security agency, at least. If you're not using their services (at least passively), you're definitely not making them money.

      This doesn't make them Totally Cool Groovy Guys You Should Trust With Anything, but it does make them naive ideologues surfing along the edge of a slippery slope rather than the outright thuggery of Facebook and other traditional advertisers—FB is more like a spam subscription; once you get signed up, you can be certain that your private information will propagate across the cosmos for eternity.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      Please describe to me in concrete terms (facts, not FUD) how google is worse than facebook.

    4. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google doesn't (as far as I know) sell user information to advertisers

      If you really believe this, I'll tell you a little story:

      A few years ago, I was working for a manufacturer in R+D, developing an accessory for one of our products. One of the parts of that accessory required a plastic part with very specific features (it was a living hinge, but with certain requirements that made polypropylene unsuitable).

      I used Google to find out what other types of plastics might be suitable, and quickly finally found a material that would work. A rather obscure, rather expensive plastic with a barbaric name. I Googled some more about that plastic, then called it a day and went home.

      The VERY NEXT DAY, I got a spam in my work mailbox from a Chinese manufacturer of that very plastic, offering me prices by the ton.

      I had never heard of that plastic before Googling it.

      Coincidence?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Funny

      And ironically, replace "Facebook" with "Hollywood" in the summary above.

      And comically, replace "Facebook" with "Slashdot" in the summary above.

      Or "Obamacare" . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Realistically, Google wasn't founded by a guy who stole passwords to read other people's email. It wasn't founded by a guy who told some people he would build their idea, then went around and built it for himself, lying to them to the last possible minute. Facebook was founded by, and is still run by that guy. Furthermore there is no reason to believe he's changed.

      Google at least attempts to be non-evil, and have sacrificed profit for their principles. People who are upset with them mainly disagree that collecting personal information for the purpose of custom-tailored ad-serving is evil, but that's controversial (really, people who do it feel they are helping users). My primary complaints with Google is that they have too many bugs in their software and don't support backwards compatibility, but that's off-topic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Coincidence?

      Quite possibly

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Realistically, Google wasn't founded by a guy who stole passwords to read other people's email.

      Google may have been founded by people with the best of intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      Google believes in a panopticon world in which anonymity and the right to privacy has disappeared. They may believe it's for my own good, but their dream world is my nightmare.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    9. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has their own OS that they're ingrained into that's in the hands of hundreds of millions/billions. Google has the largest online video service (YouTube). Google already has a fair sized last mile infrastructure even if Facebook is "looking into it". Google has an online office suite that Facebook doesn't. Google owns large amounts of dark fiber. All of these things gives Google the advantage in the area of end user data mining and that's what we're discussing here. That'd be my first thoughts on the matter.
       
      Disclaimer: I'm not the OP.

    10. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Err, do you even know what cookies are and how they can be used?

    11. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Why a lack of anonymity is a nightmare to you? Is it because you don't live in a free country and the only way you can express your ideas without going to jail afterward is with anonymity? Is it because you want to be able to lie to people around you in order to look better than you really are? Is it for another reason?

    12. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cookies are disabled on all my browsers, except on certain whitelisted sites I trust, and Google sites aren't on it.

      Also, I got a spam mail, not an ad on a webpage.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    13. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It could be a coincidence, but as your story leaves the name of what you googled conspicuously absent, you've conveniently made it impractical for anyone to even attempt to prove or disprove a causative factor in this regard. This tactic is a staple used by conspiracy theorists everywhere and is often indicative of something that isn't logically sustainable from an objective standpoint if all the facts were actually revealed.

    14. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe just because it's creepy and intrusive. Because we're allowed to object to things without there being life-or-death consequences attached to them.

    15. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by j_l_cgull · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't (as far as I know) sell user information to advertisers. They exclusively use their own analytics; all an advertiser can do is submit their target demographics and keywords, and let Google do the math.

      This is an oft quoted statement. Does that imply/insinuate others (like fb) do ? I think fb and Google might be the same in this regard.

      If you're not using their services (at least passively), you're definitely not making them money.

      When I send an email from my non-Gmail account to somebody who uses Gmail, is this still true ?

    16. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh look a "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"

      Show me your tax return.
      Tell me where you live.
      Tell me the names of your children.

      --
      BMO

    17. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      Well, it's just that I can't remember the name of that plastic. It's been a few years. No conspiracy involved :)

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    18. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Number of times google has fucked ME over so far... zero
      Number of times facebook has fucked ME over so far. six

      Number of times google has demanded payment for services or my credit card info. zero
      Number of times facebook has demanded payment for services or my credit card info. lots

      Number of annoyances google shoves in my face. zero
      Number of annoyances facebook shoves in my face. thousands

      Yes. Google is WAY better. So far.

      While google MIGHT be bad. Or turn bad eventually. They are not even in the same realm of scumbag as facebook.

    19. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Saying there is no conspiracy involved generally leads people to believe there is one.

      I do know what you are saying at least in part, but google uses all sorts of tracking to find you. Google range rover in IE without adblock and watch for the next month. rage rover ads will feature promentaly on every website you visit even if google has nothing to do with them.

      I use adblock on safari at home and I don't have those issues. turn off adblock for a while and the web becomes something a lot messier.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    20. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      Saying there is no conspiracy involved generally leads people to believe there is one.

      Aaw man, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't aren't I? :)

      Okay look, Google is a company that scares the bejesus out of me, and I believe the things they develop and invest in lead the world to a dangerously slippery slope. I also think they don't publicize all the things they do because they believe people aren't ready to hear what they have in store for them. But I *emphatically* don't believe there is ANY conspiracy involved.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    21. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The panopticion is comming. all intelligent humans with a realistic view KNOW it's comming.

      The only real question is... Who do we want to lead it?

      If the question is facebook or google. i choose google. judging by what i've seen so far. which is really all you can do unless you have a crystal ball handy.

    22. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by labnet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is why we need a pure peer to peer social messaging system. Call it torrents for facebook. There is no reason for centralisation of social data. Features like
      - meta data and messaging data is spread around different peers as encrypted chunks so it can be rebuit on any new device you sign up to.
      - grouping like google circles.
      - expiry option on messages and images.

      Perhaps there is already someone doing this?

      --
      46137
    23. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

      Number of times google has fucked ME over so far... zero

      Millions of Youtube account holders who were forced to get a G+ account and divulge their true identity or give up the ability to comment beg to differ.

      Number of times google has demanded payment for services or my credit card info. zero

      Try using Google Play to get a for-pay Android app.

      Number of annoyances google shoves in my face. zero

      Try using an Android app - ads.
      Try searching something on google.com - more ads.
      Try *not* giving in to the constant G+ nagging.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    24. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number of times google has fucked ME over so far... zero
      Number of times facebook has fucked ME over so far. six

      Facebook has cancelled my account on numerous occasions with nary a word about the reason much less any way to restore my account.

    25. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Try using Google Play to get a for-pay Android app.

      I bill those directly to my Verizon Wireless account. :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roscoe, is that you?

      I named my Roomba after you. Roscoe P Coltrane cleans my lounge.

      Sorry. Carry on.

    27. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook's position on providing large amounts of user data to its business partners has been the subject of scrutiny a few times. It remains unclear exactly how much stuff developers like Zynga have been able to access. There was also a series of events a couple of years ago where privacy controls were updated and set to overly permissive defaults—which is either spectacularly bad management (given how much bad PR it generated each and every time) or a bribed enablement of data-scraping.

      As for sending email to a Gmail user, that's what I meant by "passive" use of Google's services, although I should note that if your e-mail never gets read, it cannot make Google money, just like a site with Google ads on it that never gets visited. You're really only an incidental bystander in that situation.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    28. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I've gotten quite a few random spam messages from Chinese industry, despite being a software engineer at an academic institution with absolutely nothing to do with any product development or manufacturing whatsoever. I've gotten offers for piping, ceramics, and a wide variety of plastics. At this very moment, I am reading a spam message from Kevin, who informs me he represents "one of the best digital images retouching/editing professionals located in China."

      They seem like very good deals, and I'm almost saddened that I can't take them up on what appear to be very genuine, heartfelt attempts at mass mailing in an age where most unsolicited e-mail is about "your urgent Cooperation in transferring the sum of $11.3million immediately to your private account" and unauthorized activity notifications from Bl1zzard Entertanmnt on my several hundred Batt1e.net accounts.

      If you ever figure out what kind of plastic it was, let me know, and I'll check to see if I got the same e-mail!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    29. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would he tell you any of those things? You could be anybody with something to personally gain from misusing that information. We can at least expect a company/government to handle our information professionally, or rake them over the coals if they don't.

    30. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      Why would Google sell that info? They make so much more by selling access to it.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    31. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Please describe to me in concrete terms (facts, not FUD) how google is worse than facebook.

      I'm all out of aggregate; are cement terms okay?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    32. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn off adblock, and the web won't be messier... you likely will get a nice infection, due to ad servers being a vector for malware.

    33. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Spykk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would you suspect Google? A more probable explanation would be you visited sites affiliated with the manufacturers of said plastic looking for information about it from your work connection. They saw your domain name accessing their site, looked you up on the corporate web page and sent you an offer.

    34. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google tracks everywhere you go by their "ad-service". They gather tons of data on everything everywhere. They also have intentionally broken open standards (IMAP, ICAL) so that you are "encouraged" to log into their web services, so they can track you everywhere you go. Their last mile initiative allows them to track everywhere you go. (Are you getting a certain 3-letter agency drift here?)

    35. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: "Why do you don't like being on cameras 24/7. Got something to hide?"

      Lets be real. There are people whom one does not want to know every detail of their private life. There are many stories about people being dropped from health insurance policies, rates hiked, jobs lost, and even criminal charges pressed because of FB.

      A good example of this is an acquaintance of mine. He mentioned something he did when in high school 20 years ago. A few business days later, he got a notice of trespass and got banned for life from every single store in a large chain because of his antics. For criminal/civil actions, the statute of limitations has long since passed, but because of one FB post, he has faced heavy consequences.

      When some piece of shit says, "do you have something to hide?", it makes me realize that some people do not deserve basic rights. Just because one doesn't go to jail immediately makes it OK for being spied on.

      Posting AC just because I can. I just don't feel like having my username attached to a post dealing with some beefdiaper who advocates for even more intrusive a police state than we already have.

    36. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Continuing this:

      Number of times I have been able to use Google's API or tools for meaningful work in the past 7 days: Over ten (from quick/dirty spreadsheets, to GDrive + TrueCrypt... a TB for $10 a month is a VERY good deal for media.

      Of course, there is my Android device. I've used this for many tasks, be it a NFS server, samba server, secure storage (copy files to it, they get encrypted and copied offsite), decent place for music storage, and many other used. If Google is "evil", then what does one call Apple where one cannot use an iDevice for anything of the above, or if so, it requires jailbreaking (which an opportunity for it is rare, and it is illegal to do so.)
      '
      So, Google may be "evil", but compared to Apple which requires devices to be used Tim's/Steve's way or no way, FB that slings ads at you 24/7 and can be EXTREMELY dangerous to the career if one makes the wrong statement (even a private statement to a group of friends can be picked up by a monitoring party that looks for keywords and flags individuals... which will you branded "racist" for life, which gets you unhirable.)

      I'll take Google every time. Google has done nothing to negatively affect me in any way, shape, or form while other big names have done a lot worse.

    37. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      I'd mod you up but feel the need to contribute to this topic. Where are the Facebook competitors? Everyone uses Facebook while also bitching and moaning about the lack of control and privacy, you would think the market is ripe for take over by an ethical/open competitor so where is it? All you need is the friends/status update/post pictures/IM platform along with some form of ownership and freedom from ads and you'd be set. For revenue I think the world is ready to pay for what they get model (free is not as appealing as it once was now everything is loaded with ads), so I'd try for a micro subscription model like Whatsapp, say $5/year. If the App was solid, and you threw a few hundred million marketing the benefits of Social Media 2.0 with privacy, ownership and control of your own data I can't see why Facebook can't be overthrown. There is certainly demand for it, and a huge slice of market share just waiting to be taken.

    38. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Teckla · · Score: 2

      Your seething hated of Google is noted. And noted. And noted...

      This article is about Facebook. Quit trying to change the subject.

    39. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why a lack of anonymity is a nightmare to you? Is it because you don't live in a free country and the only way you can express your ideas without going to jail afterward is with anonymity?

      In no country can you express any actually significant idea without making enemies. Powers that be want nothing so much as status quo, since that means they stay on top, and any significant idea by definition threatens it. Anonymity is absolutely vital for any society, since it allows unpleasant truths to be expressed without fear of legal or extralegal punishment, whether it comes in the form of jail, vigilantes or unemployment.

      Furthermore, as Manning and Snowden showed, even nominally free countries tend to have boils of corruption which need to be exposed to be healed - and we can't rely on always having a hero ready when we need one, thus such exposition needs to be possible anonymously.

      And of course there's the "knowledge is power" -aspect, where the state being able to casually record everything its citizens do online (and increasingly offline) simply makes it too powerful to resist the temptation to abuse said power.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    40. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So please explain how do you think Google manage to associate your search with your e-mail address ?

    41. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for the original poster, but in my case anonymity is important to me BECAUSE I SAY IT IS. My reasons are complicated and need not be justified to you or anybody else. Maybe I just flipped a coin one day and decided not to blab my life to the whole planet all the time. That would be my right, and it is not yours to question my decisions about myself.

      You seem like one of those people who, if we met in person, would find it strange and suspicious that you couldn't find anything about me on Facebook, on LinkedIn, and even a Google search is something you'd have to work rather hard at to turn up anything remotely private about me. Yet I'm not that strange. I don't run underground illegal activities. I live a pretty normal life. I don't practice deception (obfuscation, yes, but not deception) and I probably use and enjoy the Internet more than most people. I simply know that knowledge has value, and that information is a weapon. I will not hand something valuable to someone without compensation, and I will never hand a weapon to someone I don't trust. I don't trust you. That doesn't mean you're not trustworthy, it just means I have no basis for doing so. Corporations are easier: I don't trust Google, Facebook, or anybody else whose motivations are so obviously at odds with my own.

    42. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      I'll show you mine... if you show me yours.

      Anyway, you have already my name and if you take a bit of time to do a little search on the Internet you'll find my address and even my phone number. Yep, it's in there and I don't care. Maybe it's because Canada (Montreal) is mostly a free country with a low crime rate, thanks to gun control, so I don't live in a state of paranoia.

      So nice try, but your argument just falls flat.

      As far as I'm concerned, the only real problem I face in my day to day life, both personal and professional, is not political oppression, it is people who are lying or at least hiding who they really are to get an advantage. So for me, the complete end of anonymity would be a good thing.

    43. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, it's not that hard for a social site to stand their ground with a ZERO share, ZERO sale, ZERO give, privacy policy.
      All you have to do is say fuck all of that and instead accept an anonymous $5.00 bill marked with the account name in the mail once a year.
      But no, everyone has this obsession with free shit, so they get their asses marketed out from under them, given to TLA's,
      and a shit product in return.
      You're all stupid.

    44. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Required+Snark · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Obamacare?

      Do you keep your KKK robes hung up in the closet where they won't get wrinkled but someone might see them, or do you fold them in a drawer where they are out of sight but you have to iron them before you go out to a cross burning?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    45. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by kqs · · Score: 1

      So you think that the spam was initiated by Google and not by one of the many sites you went to to learn about this plastic?

    46. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settling for the lesser of two evils is not only a false defense, but a mindset of the enslaved.

      Ready or not, social media is becoming one of the primary ways people connect, learn, make decisions, get recommendations and do business. “Word of mouth” – good or bad – travels much farther and faster than ever, so it is essential to be a part of the conversation.

      Effectively managing all of these personas can be time consuming and the their potential is often unused. After all, Zuckerberg has a business to run and can’t take time to update his Facebook status, slander competitors and monitor customer reviews and ratings. Effective use of social media manipulators can make or break his brand.

      Instead, he uses SMM companies like Burson Marseller, Waggener Edstrom and many, many others to drag competitors into any negative discussion of his company, to deflect blame to regulators, community and any other party within range of his sock-puppets' mud-slinging.

      If you're an unethical business owner, don’t miss these opportunities to reach new customers, lock in customer loyalty, smear any business threats, and fund advocates for your brand!

    47. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll show you mine... if you show me yours.

      Why would he show you his tax return, when he's not one of those "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" like you? And if you really are one of those people, you should be willing to show your tax return without the condition of someone else showing you theirs.

    48. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      There are people who do not like me because of my opinions, the same way I don't like some people because of theirs. I certainly did suffer indirect punishment because of who I am, the same way I never hesitated to "punish" someone for being who he is (mostly stopping any kind of relationship with that person).

      Can a vigilante harm me? Where I live (Montreal) the risk is insignificant. Can I lose a job because of an overzealous boss who do not like my opinions? Certainly, but I'll just find another one (BTW I'm self-employed).

      As for the law, again in the context of where I live, actions can be punished, but we can't be jailed for ideas (I'm open to examples showing the contrary). There are rules which limit what we can say, but in my mind they are reasonable as most of the time they only limit the form of the expression, not the expression of the idea by itself.

      Overall, I certainly do not feel I have to hide, even though my views on a lot of things are significantly different compared to the majority (like my views on this subject).

      Having said that, I agree anonymity and privacy are useful. Yes, corruption need to be exposed and, yes, knowledge is power. On the other hand, their usefulness if pretty much a consequence of themselves in the first place. Without anonymity and privacy, you couldn't have corruption and if your "enemy" has as much knowledge of you as you do of him, then your knowledge doesn't give you artificial power.

      For me, fighting for anonymity and privacy is like an arms race. What if we stopped arming ourselves instead?

    49. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to diaspora?

    50. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it is people who are lying or at least hiding who they really are to get an advantage."

      Perhaps they are trying to avoid disadvantage (eg. discrimination). Unless bias and discrimination have been solved in your future dystopia.

      "Yep, it's in there and I don't care. Maybe it's because Canada (Montreal) is mostly a free country with a low crime rate"

      Probably more to do with you not yet having been a victim of identity fraud or any number of scenarios where your (public) private information can be used against you or your family.

      Being sold crap I don't need is the very least of my concerns. There are enough nutjobs, liars, and thieves in this world that I should take care not to make their job easier.

    51. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Which is a nice way to make yourself immortal.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    52. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't get ads on my android aps. But I use decent apps. Ads on Google.com? No shit. G+ has never nagged me. True identity? You CAN get an email under the name John Doe, it's not even hard.... etc.

    53. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll show you mine... if you show me yours.

      Yep, it's in there and I don't care.

      So for me, the complete end of anonymity would be a good thing.

      Yikes. Your first statement contradicts many of your others.
      He never asked for your name for OBVIOUS reasons, yet you had to divert the conversation. Look up ALL the John Smiths on Facebook and tell us knowing the real problem is just the name. For the many you'll find without a picture, facebook still has enough info behind closed doors to tell them apart. So the problem isn't what it means to you, but what it empowers US to do even if we don't have the right guy in our crosshairs.

      You also say you don't care if someone does a few searches, but our old information systems already allowed that, it's not a facebook problem --the info has always sort of been there. It's at the price of cumbersome courthouse visits, phonebook searches, stalkerish surveillance and questioning / illegal bugging. Yet you (who HATE anonymity to death) hide behind HIS right to his own anonymity, which you already know he values. So your "...then I'll show you mine" game is unlosable and you'll never need to deliver.
      Because you don't say anything about where one might find your taxes. Things would change a little if all the info were online, and you'd drop your screenname before those searches tied your name to more than you bargained for, even in your peaceful land.

    54. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your post but this one is just stupid:

      Try using Google Play to get a for-pay Android app.

      Obviously you need to provide payment information to purchase a for-pay product. You'll need to find a better counter-example against "demanded payment for services" than "using a paid service" I'm afraid.

      There's plenty of sites that require you to give them CC info even when they're (supposedly) not charging you for anything. Often claimed to be a form of adult verification (and thus unsurprisingly mostly a tactic of adult sites) which is absolutely stupid since you can get a CC well before 18 in many jurisdictions so on top of being invasive and probably untrustworthy, it couldn't possibly even accomplish the claimed purpose.

      So far, I've not seen anything like that from Google. They request way too much personal information of course and do a lot of other nasty things but up to this point I've never been asked to give them a CC number (obviously, I haven't picked up any non-free Android apps or anything.) Then again, I've never been asked for a CC by FB either so whatever.

    55. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not enough. You need to use a service like spamgourment and have a unique address for each mail list so that you know exactly what act linked your email address to your web search.

      Google searches used to leak information in the referrer (I'm not sure what personalised search would have done to this; possibly something would include enough to link to a mail address). They stopped doing that now.

    56. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      LOL

    57. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Same here. No attempts at obfuscation or what have you, either. And I used to get similar messages on Skype before I started blocking anyone not on my contact list. Now I just get an occasional contact request from someone at some Chinese company. Pipes, plastics, wire/cable, and construction equipment.

      I was passing through Shenzhen a couple of years ago, and the bus went right by the office (very large building, very prominent signage) of one of the companies I'd received mail from. I can't recall the name any longer, but my brother-in-law later told me that it's a well-known firm in the region and has a fairly good reputation. So I guess at least some of these offers were the real deal.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    58. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Oh. My bro-in-law's response might seem a bit more relevant if I'd remembered to mention that my wife is from Guangzhou, and that her brother lives and owns a large and fairly successful business there. :)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    59. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Come to Sweden. You'll be able to access any of that info about me or anybody else here.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    60. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Number42 · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about privacy and security (which, if the iOS security whitepaper is anything to go by, are things that Apple's been better at), not diversity of uses. Besides, all those things you can't use iOS for won't matter to the average end user, which the iPhone, iPad etc. are geared towards. It does, however, bug me that you can't toggle all the encryption and sandboxing without jailbreaking (which I don't think anyone's been prosecuted for, yet). I would hardly call Apple evil for that, just restricting.

    61. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Number42 · · Score: 1

      Could it be possible use TOR to ensure privacy? Also, I'd definitely mod this comment up.

    62. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know of any such project. As someone else pointed out, diaspora* is the closest, but it's federated, not peer-to-peer. Personally, I worry that federated social networks will go the same way e-mail has gone: yes, there's tons of minor e-mail servers, but a few large companies control a very large fraction of e-mail traffic (espeically for personal use) because running a server is hard.

      One reason such a service doesn't exist is worse is better: centeralized services are much, much easier to create than decentralized services. Part of this is that implementing polices like anti-spam, censorship (Facebook blocks various content including nudity, some hate speech, etc.; good or bad, Facebook does it because enough of their users want it), and account recovery are very difficult to implement satisfactorily in a decentralized way. This is not insurrmontable, but, once again, a decentralized protocol has to get those things right in the design phase.

      Another problem with a p2p service is that p2p networks require more processor and network usage than centralized services, so they make poor applications for mobile devices. I'm not sure exactly how to handle that, but some sort of system where plugged in phones on wifi (and possibly desktops/laptops as well for more technical users) would act as supernodes on the p2p network and phones on battery and/or cell internet would communicate just with a single supernode which would act like a centralized service but actually be communicating with a p2p protocol to the rest of the network.

      Realistically, due to network effects, a Facebook clone won't replace Facebook. Facebook's replacement will be whatever the next version of social media looks like. In practice, it will probably be replaced by a series of services that do better at some portion of what Facebook does (e.g. Instagram and Pinterest are different ways to do photo sharing than Facebook; G+ is similar to Facebook, but in practice has more of a focus on technical discussions).

    63. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Introducing Captain 'PhRooT-LooP': Absolutely "LIVE" (lol) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    64. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are from the nuthouse "PhRooT-LooP" (lol) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    65. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google searches used to leak information in the referrer (I'm not sure what personalised search would have done to this; possibly something would include enough to link to a mail address). They stopped doing that now.

      Oh really? I had no idea. I've been using RefControl for years. Every site gets only its own top level domain as the referrer no matter what the real referrer would have been.

      But it's good to know that passive people who don't learn how things work will get a similar benefit. From this one single company.

    66. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by causality · · Score: 1

      Saying there is no conspiracy involved generally leads people to believe there is one.

      Aaw man, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't aren't I? :)

      Okay look, Google is a company that scares the bejesus out of me, and I believe the things they develop and invest in lead the world to a dangerously slippery slope. I also think they don't publicize all the things they do because they believe people aren't ready to hear what they have in store for them. But I *emphatically* don't believe there is ANY conspiracy involved.

      If you want a real conspiracy theory take a very close look at how precisely Google received its initial start-up money and what government agency was involved. It's not really so absurd to posit that the government makes "investments" in things it believes will serve its interests just like businesses do.

      And if you want Google search without Google tracking, try using Startpage. They conduct Google searches on your behalf and act as a proxy.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    67. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overall, I certainly do not feel I have to hide, even though my views on a lot of things are significantly different compared to the majority (like my views on this subject).

      Yet your views also happen to be convenient for the existing power structure. Governments everywhere would love citizens who don't value privacy because all politicians know that information is power. Especially archived information that lets you go "back in time" and see what Suddenly Interesting Subject said and did years ago. That's what, say, the NSA can do. That's what you don't seem to mind having a Canadian agency do.

      The danger is that having this kind of power tempts decent governments into becoming tyrannical. It's a tool of tyranny. A lot of things have to set the stage first before a decent government can be transformed into tyranny. It's always done through slow incremental stages. Each increment looks harmless enough.

      Consider your neighbor to the south. The US already has massive surveillance including archiving. They already have secret courts. They already have secret laws for these secret courts that citizens cannot challenge due to "national security". They already have the power to immediately strip anyone of their Constitutional rights and hold them indefinitely without evidence by declaring them a terrorism suspect. They also assert the power to extralegally assassinate American citizens. These things are dangerous and they're also completely unnecessary. Somehow the USA got through the last 200 years without such powers.

      When some kind of dictator does step up, be it a person or a party, they will find neatly prepared tools for implementing that tyranny ready to use. They won't have to make a sudden alarming power grab. All the infrastructure they could need is right there, waiting to be used.

      The problem with your attitude is that the situation will not remain that way. I would suggest any good history book if you still don't understand that.

    68. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by causality · · Score: 1

      The panopticion is comming. all intelligent humans with a realistic view KNOW it's comming.

      A person who merely possesses a high IQ is not actually intelligent, not until they learn how to make accurate observations and call things what they are.

      "Garbage in, garbage out" still applies to even the finest reasoning process.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    69. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by causality · · Score: 1

      Your seething hated of Google is noted. And noted. And noted...

      This article is about Facebook. Quit trying to change the subject.

      It often happens in a conversation about one thing, particularly a complex and nuanced thing, that it will bring up other similar things because they are related in some way. The resistance of some to this natural conversational process never made much sense.

      I could speculate that you have a loyalty to Google that you cannot realistically expect them to reciprocate (you do know that, right?), except I've seen lots of people display this tendency who obviously had no such motivation. Some people just like to complain.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    70. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by causality · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of sites that require you to give them CC info even when they're (supposedly) not charging you for anything. Often claimed to be a form of adult verification (and thus unsurprisingly mostly a tactic of adult sites) which is absolutely stupid since you can get a CC well before 18 in many jurisdictions so on top of being invasive and probably untrustworthy, it couldn't possibly even accomplish the claimed purpose.

      I'm ignorant about the back-end of credit card systems, so this raises a couple of questions for me.

      While you can get a CC under the age of 18, doesn't the credit card issuer have information like your date of birth? Can merchants request this information if they can uniquely identify the account (by the CC number and expiration date, say)?

      Or is the whole thing complete bullshit?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    71. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ironically, replace "Facebook" with "Hollywood" in the summary above.

      Let's not drag Hulk Hogan into this, brother.

    72. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why a lack of anonymity is a nightmare to you? Is it because you don't live in a free country and the only way you can express your ideas without going to jail afterward is with anonymity?

      Yes. That is any country. Just a matter of time.

      Is it because you want to be able to lie to people around you in order to look better than you really are?

      No. It is more like with your name attached to something, people will look at you rather than your argument or the information you are presenting. Quite the opposite.

      Is it for another reason?

      Due to the nature of every country ever, anonymity is needed. Once it is gone, it is too late.

    73. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Google believes in a panopticon world in which anonymity and the right to privacy has disappeared.

      This is false. Yes, yes, Eric Schmidt said things to that effect a few times; perhaps he does believe it. But Larry Page does not, nor do the vast majority of Google engineers who actually make the decisions about what Google does. It's also worth pointing out that the Buzz mistakes led to Google signing an FCC consent decree which includes regular third-party privacy audits, with serious penalties for failing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    74. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Teckla · · Score: 1

      It often happens in a conversation about one thing, particularly a complex and nuanced thing, that it will bring up other similar things because they are related in some way. The resistance of some to this natural conversational process never made much sense.

      I could speculate that you have a loyalty to Google that you cannot realistically expect them to reciprocate (you do know that, right?), except I've seen lots of people display this tendency who obviously had no such motivation. Some people just like to complain.

      Your speculation is incorrect. Pointing out that Google may have issues in no meaningful way adds to the discussion regarding Facebook's well known issues. It's a rhetorical trick to distract from the fact that Facebook has issues.

      I'm happy to discuss Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. But when someone clearly points out people don't trust Facebook, and for good reason, no value is added to the conversation when someone says, "But... Google!"

    75. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not the same. With someone's address and Social Security number, something that is on their tax return, it is trivial to steal their identity, drain their bank accounts, and buy things on their credit until they have nothing left but bankruptcy and pending lawsuits.

    76. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It is not the same.

      Um, that was sort of... you know... my point. B^)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    77. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      the features you attribute to Google are the same all over our nice little piece of a rock in any sufficiently big and successful organisation. There are differences between all of them. Not sure you can blame FB for anything anyway - they do not even consider privacy as an existing artifact of a living 'private' person so in certain sense they are 'better' than all the others in that they are frank about it.

    78. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you're an admitted "FruitLoop"? http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    79. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He keeps them in the same place you keep your Communist flag.

    80. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by autocracy · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't (as far as I know) sell user information to advertisers. They exclusively use their own analytics; all an advertiser can do is submit their target demographics and keywords, and let Google do the math.

      s/Google/Facebook/ and that's true. Anybody with a Facebook account can create an advertising account and see what any advertiser sees for targeting options. Try it out, it's eye-opening. You can only provide ads to Facebook users through Facebook. Here's one step further from the company's 10-K filing with the SEC:

      We generate a substantial majority of our revenue from advertising. The loss of marketers, or reduction in spending by marketers with Facebook, could seriously harm our business. The substantial majority of our revenue is currently generated from third parties advertising on Facebook. For 2013, 2012, and 2011, advertising accounted for 89% , 84% and 85%, respectively, of our revenue.

      We generate the substantial majority of our revenue from selling advertising placements to marketers.

      In 2013, developers received more than $2.1 billion from transactions enabled by our Payments infrastructure. While mobile applications can also integrate with Facebook, mobile applications do not process transactions using our Payments infrastructure.

      (*.3 = 630 million).

      If I compare that to Facebook's income statement, that leaves 235 million (3% of revenue) in loose change revenue. So basically, Facebook isn't running around making money except by selling ad placement. Fair disclaimers: I work for Facebook as a backend engineer for nearly a year now. I pulled all these numbers from the publicly available 10-K report.

      I think that Facebook has matured into better respecting privacy from its early days through the years before I started there and I'm very happy with seeing how things are treated internally. I'm further certain that the idea of Facebook selling personally identifiable information about its users would massively undermine the point of having an advertising delivery platform. The attitude of everybody I'm around is about trying to make something that enriches the world.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    81. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Why must it be Google and not one of the many links you clicked? Do you have any clue how easy it is to track down an email address via the work IP address, normal information a browser provides, and five minutes of effort.

      Lack of big picture thinking, yep, I spotted the mechanical engineer.

    82. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by causality · · Score: 1

      Sometimes an issue raised by a single company is bigger than that one company.

      There are lots and lots of privacy concerns on the Internet.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    83. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't have a little shit like Fuckerberg running it.

    84. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by 0xG · · Score: 1

      This happens all of the time nowadays. No surprise at all.
      Web site owners pour through their logs, and can subscribe to a service that identifies the owner of that IP.
      So, they know who has looked at what web pages.

      From there, it's pretty easy stuff.

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
    85. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by 0xG · · Score: 1

      Why a lack of anonymity is a nightmare to you? Is it because you don't live in a free country and the only way you can express your ideas without going to jail afterward is with anonymity?

      Because the idea of someone *else* making money by selling *my* personal data is abhorrent?
      If I'm going to sell my emails (etc) at least I should get the money.

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
    86. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking of large platform developers such as Zynga. The fee and labour cost is potentially significantly higher, which makes it only attractive to a smaller number of companies prepared to do the work of scraping information itself, but the opportunity for information transfer still exists, doesn't it?

      I believe you when you say the company's trying to improve its image in this regard, but, well, when you have a history of putting things like "Facebook does not screen or approve Platform Developers and cannot control how such Platform Developers use any personal information" in your privacy policy, that sours users' perception of your brand. It shouldn't really come as a surprise that people assume such things continue.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    87. Re:Because you think Google is any better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was common knowledge among my company and their competitors that any IP address that visited a product web site would be mailed with some speculative advertising, by going to any web site at the IP address and hunting around for likely email addresses. For big ticket items it's a good lead - you know someone at the company is vaguely interested in the product, which is more than marketing people usually have to work with.

  2. That's a bit of a stretch by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a company that's poised to take over the future.

    Facebook has no future. Their business plan is to continue to get people to come and give up their personal information for free, and then sell that information for profit to everyone else they can think of. The well is already starting to dry up on that. Unless you expect the world to end in the next 5 years, saying that facebook will take over the future is ridiculous.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Na,uh! It's not like major Facebook stockholders are selling off large chunks of their shares and the price is down over 20% in less than a month...

    2. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by geekmux · · Score: 2

      a company that's poised to take over the future.

      Facebook has no future. Their business plan is to continue to get people to come and give up their personal information for free, and then sell that information for profit to everyone else they can think of. The well is already starting to dry up on that. Unless you expect the world to end in the next 5 years, saying that facebook will take over the future is ridiculous.

      You're more fucking delusional than Tinkerbell on acid if you think for one second an entire generation is going to step away from the "Free" button when paying for anything online.

      Seriously, I can't stop laughing over the absurdity of this...this brings ignorance to a whole new level.

      And you might want to trace the money and ownership of most of the shit you use online before making claims as to where monopolies exist and where they do not.

    3. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook will fall. It's inevitable. It will be replaced by something better, cooler and more suited to people needs. The question is when. It may be in 5 years, maybe even 10 years, but it will fall.

    4. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The stock price has dropped quite a bit in the last few days, but it's still above the average for the last year and a lot higher than it was this time last year. It's hard to draw intelligent conclusions from the Facebook stock price, it's better to use it as a source of entropy for your random number generator...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Video ads are coming to facebook. Go look up the average price per impression for a video ad. Facebook could lose 90% of its users (like TV networks have) and still make a profit.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the universe is going to die an energy death someday too. Somehow I remain unconcerned.

    7. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Facebook will fall. It's inevitable. It will be replaced by something better, cooler and more suited to people needs. The question is when. It may be in 5 years, maybe even 10 years, but it will fall.

      Failure measured in years were prior to when the great divide of wealth started happening.

      With companies stockpiling tens of billions in cash reserves these days, it gets rather comical talking about bankruptcy, no matter how uncool they become.

      "Too Big to Fail" ring a bell? No one said those words 10 years ago about any company. Now it's become a trademark and measure by which we write laws around.

    8. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You're more fucking delusional than Tinkerbell on acid if you think for one second an entire generation is going to step away from the "Free" button when paying for anything online.

      Seriously, I can't stop laughing over the absurdity of this...this brings ignorance to a whole new level.

      I might have agreed with you 3 years ago, but I think the Apple Store micro payment model, and micro subscription models like WhatsApp and Spotify have demonstrated that the market has matured and are ready to pay for stuff if it's good. Given the choice of Facebook for free, or something very Facebook-like for $5/year with privacy and no ads I think there's enough people out there now who would choose the latter if it were available.

    9. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, FB has so much momentum that they are getting to the point where nothing can really replace them, similar to how World of Warcraft may not be perfect, and new MMOs appear all the time, but WoW keeps the lead regardless of economy.

      Realistically, there are so many people dependant on FB, be it people who use it for event calendars, people who use it as a place for messages, a replacement for E-mail... once a service hits a certain size on the Internet, it pretty much doesn't go away.

    10. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're more fucking delusional than Tinkerbell on acid if you think for one second an entire generation is going to step away from the "Free" button when paying for anything online.

      Geocities.

      Seriously, I can't stop laughing over the absurdity of this...this brings ignorance to a whole new level.

      Friendster.

      And you might want to trace the money and ownership of most of the shit you use online before making claims as to where monopolies exist and where they do not.

      MySpace.

    11. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're more fucking delusional than Tinkerbell on acid if you think for one second an entire generation is going to step away from the "Free" button when paying for anything online.

      Geocities.

      Seriously, I can't stop laughing over the absurdity of this...this brings ignorance to a whole new level.

      Friendster.

      And you might want to trace the money and ownership of most of the shit you use online before making claims as to where monopolies exist and where they do not.

      MySpace.

      (Zuckerberg logs onto bank website)

      Wow, would you look at that. Over 10 billion in cash. Looks like I'm not going anywhere, fuckers, but hey keep inventing cool shit so I can buy it. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to get back to work on ensuring my brand is painted all over your future 3D world...this Oculus shit is pretty cool.

    12. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the choice of Facebook for free, or something very Facebook-like for $5/year with privacy and no ads I think there's enough people out there now who would choose the latter if it were available.

      Oh, you mean if like someone like Facebook were to offer a service like Facebook for $5/year with no ads?

      Seriously, how can you think they're not thinking this? Only difference is people would pay $5/month to not have to move. At all. People are lazy. Like really fucking lazy.

      And they're cheap too, so maybe they'll just stay good little obedient streams of revenue and continue to not give a shit much like the post-Snowden era now.

    13. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Myspace.

    14. Re:That's a bit of a stretch by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think you both exaggerate one little bit. The concern people have about privacy issues will grow eventually. We are not there yet judging on the way the intelligent well educated masses went over blatant violations of citizens rights by NSA and other scumbags. But there is no one single thing in the universe that stays the same. Even change changes all the time. FB will change. Maybe it will fade away or maybe it will come to senses or it will be forced to or all this together etc. I went with little pain off of FB. Now my contacts with some of my friends are bit more limited than before but hey how can one expect this moloch to fall if one does not do anything?

      Furthermore, it is my opinion that FB must be destroyed.

  3. Facebook will implode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook's ads are questionable, and the company will be toast when people figure it out. Sleazy-to-the-core won't last forever.
    Facebook Fraud
    Facebook CPC - Don’t Waste Your Money

  4. Let's quickly hate wikipedia while we are at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just about any encyclopaedia which features biographic information. How could they! They are getting page views/money from dead people! And the question is: you will be dead, so why do you care?

  5. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since we all know that space is the only driver behind technology, Facebook needs its own space program.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it helps to put Sugarhill on the moon or some other place out of the way, I'm for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom of the Marianna Trench is cheaper.

    3. Re:Simple solution by umghhh · · Score: 1

      To shoot Z. into the sun? Come to think of it, maybe a good idea even if it does not do anything to FB

      Furthermore, it is my opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.

  6. Don't be a Twit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Zucker! Wouldn't you really want to be Zucker, too?

    1. Re:Don't be a Twit! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Would I get to make movies like "Airplane"? Surely, you can't be serious?

    2. Re:Don't be a Twit! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Surely, you can't be serious?

      It's a large building with lots of doctors, but that's not important right now.

    3. Re:Don't be a Twit! by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 2

      Surely, you can't be serious?

      It's a large building with lots of doctors, but that's not important right now.

      ...and don't call me Shirley

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
    4. Re:Don't be a Twit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would I get to make movies like "Airplane"? Surely, you can't be serious?

      FTFY: Shirley, you can't be Sirius.

    5. Re:Don't be a Twit! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not much of an improvement, considering that "Zucker" in German either means "Sugar" or, used colloquially and as a noun "twitch".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Don't be a Twit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thank you, I take it black. Like my men.

  7. But it's fit for Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between Google and Facebook, which one is an ad agency with a private jumbo jet for its execs?

    1. Re:But it's fit for Google? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      What does a plane have to do with it? Iron Maiden have one, too.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  8. The Social Experience? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience

    Except for those of us who take the 'social experience' to mean actually relating to other people in meat-space.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:The Social Experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or even on the internet. People can and do be social on the internet without putting Facebook in the middle. They share photos, exchange emails, tell their friends about their new dog or latest breakup all without FB being involved... as astonishing as that seems.

      Facebook is for idiots. Always has been. It's the AOL of the modern internet, and as such, it is fine that it keeps existing, because it keeps the idiots occupied and away from the rest of the interwebs.

  9. Information is power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if you subscribe to the axiom, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', then the logical conclusion in regards to Google, Facebook, xxxxx is that handing over the comprehensive details of your life is folly.

    It doesn't matter who you give this power too, if it unchecked as it is now, you are at their mercy.

  10. Not all aspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience..''

    Nonsense. They don't own my living room.

  11. Needs something different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The users are getting to used to the ads fromat, they needed to change them up a bit for more clicks.

  12. Facebook owns Location Services? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Uh... no. They would LIKE to, but seriously - Places is the Google+ of the Facebook universe.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Trying to leave facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to mention the social backlash you could face when all of your Facebook 'friends' discover that you are no longer on their friend list. I think that is the biggest reason why it is so persistent and why it is so hard to leave even when one wants to ditch the social networking super giant.

    I feel the only way people will be able to start leaving the network without fear of social backlash is when there is an 'organic' event where everyone you know is leaving for possibly the next best thing at which time you feel ok to disengage with Facebook because everyone else you know is doing it.

    1. Re:Trying to leave facebook by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is that hard, it just takes a critical mass which is the difficult part. Having said that, my teenage kids and their friends don't seem to care for Facebook, they all like Instagram for some reason, and some other IM apps. Facebook seems to have grabbed generation of 20 to 40 somethings, but not so much for anyone else. So it's only a matter of time before something new takes over. We all know how fickle the online market is, if I were a Facebook shareholder I'd be looking to sell.

  14. Simply because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't ever power anything but Zuckerberg's wallet.

  15. Obligatory XKCD by FridayBob · · Score: 1
  16. Who? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience—photos (Instagram), status updates (Facebook), location services (Places).

    That's funny, I don't use any of these services, yet I have a very social Web experience. I hang in places where people with the same hobbies hang out and it's great. It's called forums.

    1. Re:Who? by antdude · · Score: 2

      And newsgroups, IRC, etc. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Who? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      ^ THIS.

      Facebook only own the social experience of people who let it own them.

    3. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called forums.

      They're called fora.

      FTFY.

    4. Re:Who? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Forums and fora are both correct with forums listed as most preferred. Dictionary. Pedants should use them.

    5. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on which dictionary you consult. I prefer to stick to classical forms.

      I guess you prefer "datums" too, right?

  17. Facebook or Google? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Whoever wins, we loose.

    1. Re:Facebook or Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If being too tight is bad, surely the one which requires loosening the most is the one to lose.

  18. Getting blocked? by Mr2cents · · Score: 2

    I've been pondering on how toget rid of my facebook account. Is it possible to get your account suspended by posting filth and other matirial that's against their terms of use? I've heard about people getting their account blocked. Instead of panicking over it, I want to embrace it. Good idea?

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:Getting blocked? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your account may be blocked, but your info on Facebook servers? That's forever. Every day I'm more and more glad that I have never had an account, and never will.

    2. Re:Getting blocked? by gringer · · Score: 1

      Every day I'm more and more glad that I have never had an account, and never will.

      I'm in the same boat, but I'm not deluding myself by thinking that Facebook doesn't have a shadow account for me -- this has been confirmed to have been done in the past. Facebook is probably aware that I exist, and they obtain some benefit from being able to identify me in photos or posts (for example) and tracking my actions.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    3. Re:Getting blocked? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 2

      The sooner the better?

      Yes, as everyone says, the "information is forever"...whatever. I've been on the internet since roughly 1998, and it's relatively challenging to find information on me from that far back. Plus - what benefit would it serve?

      As long as you are still on FB, they are getting current information to sell to the highest bidder. Next week that information won't be as relevant. Next month, even less so. In five years? Who in the hell is going to give a shit what you were doing five years ago?

      Of course - there are other things you can do to help reduce the BS...change email addresses/ip addresses/phone numbers...move...the usual things you have to do to get rid of a stalker. Fortunately, in a planet of roughly 6 billion idiots (giving some leeway for people who aren't idiots or don't use the neterwebz), when you walk away they just don't care. At least, not right now. Not really. But later? When people finally start realizing what it is they're giving up? Yeah...then they'll be chasing users, and you'll probably be enjoying it a lot less.

    4. Re:Getting blocked? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      "I've been on the internet since roughly 1998, and it's relatively challenging to find information on me from that far back."

      You're doing it wrong. I've been on the internet since 1994 and it's relatively challenging to find information on me from last Tuesday.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:Getting blocked? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself champ. I've had numerous women admit not just infidelities but actively criminal abuse of the immigration system to me on facebook for some fucked up reason, which was duly reported to the relevant authorities. Long live facebook's long lived memory!

    6. Re:Getting blocked? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Why? I used to be a bored sysadmin for a few years and spent many many hours reading everyone's email. At first it seemed interesting, but not long after, even the juiciest of gossip got boring. Undisclosed office romances, nude selfies, bitchiness, drug dealing all got a bit meh after a while. Seen it all before and once you have a big enough sample of human activity it's all just the same material with slightly different characters. I can see an interest in big data purely for marketing reasons, and maybe some law enforcement interest, but I can't see how me or any of my Facebook friend's data is particularly interesting to anybody. Once you've seen holiday photos, photos of what I had for dinner, photos of my nieces and nephews, and co-ordinate where we're going for drinks next weekend, it's 99.999% noise.

    7. Re:Getting blocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been on the Internet since well before that... and if I choose to pull up my name, yep, there are USENET posts with my name and E-mail address there. Same with E-mail lists I've been on.

      With the fact that the US is going for incarcerating people as never before, I wouldn't be surprised to see local DAs start sifting through FB data just to find groups of kids who might have been out past city curfew and perform mass arrests. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some alert to the police if a number of phones belonging to 18 and younger gathering in an area passes a threshold... which means a rave, drugs, and easy arrests. (Hint: If a police officer, DA, judge, or even the public defender don't maintain arrest/conviction ratios, their career will be jeopardized, and they will be booted out for people that maintain them.)

    8. Re:Getting blocked? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      It's a big process that most end users don't understand and can't resolve without a lot of help. For a long time I simply didn't care, so I didn't bother with much extra security. It's slow going as I migrate, but essentially, if you can find information about me online, I intend it to be there ;)

      Besides...I don't like to boast about it, because some people take it as a challenge :p It's easier to be hidden when nobody is looking :D

  19. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People trust Facebook far more than any stupid shit is likely to come out of discussion here. Knowing nerds and the way they think, the alternative will have a name that makes people cringe, LadyFuck or something stupid.

  20. Don't trust any single entity with your future by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    especially not entities who's focus is profit

  21. Zuck himself said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    His users are morons. You'd have to be to share personal data in Facebook.

    1. Re:Zuck himself said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He actually called them "dumb fucks", which I think is actually more descriptive than morons in this case.

    2. Re:Zuck himself said it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand corrected.

  22. screw faceplant and google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    3 years after i quit im still getting 30 messages and 20 notifications and 4 pokes

    google plu slost it when hollywood showed up and invaded my privacy ...all my circles are now full a shitheads i never invited

  23. Don't assume that Facebook is forever by joeflies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As myspace proved out, the social market is incredibly fickle. Facebook's billboard model is only part of the market, and there are already signs that communication is shifting towards real time. That market isn't so clear, with plenty of fragmentation across LINE, the weibos in asia and facebook's relatively poor sticker offering trying to catch up. WeChat may have been pricey, but a necessary addition to admit they missed the boat on this angle.

    1. Re:Don't assume that Facebook is forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you're referring to WhatsApp instead of WeChat.

  24. Facebook Censorship by NaCh0 · · Score: 0

    Facebook has a very heavy hand at suspending accounts who don't mesh with the feminist agenda. If you post pro-masculine articles, prepare to have your account terminated as happened by the owner of the Return of Kings page. Other pro-male pages like the Tom Leykis show are suspecting they will be next.

    Now maybe you aren't into masculinity and don't care. But when they come for your subject of choice, (guns? reverse engineering?) prepare to find yourself locked out.

    1. Re:Facebook Censorship by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      RoK is woman hating shite. Exposing Feminism and The Anti White Knight Coalition are doing just fine, thanks.

    2. Re:Facebook Censorship by tirefire · · Score: 1

      RoK is woman hating shite.

      The funny thing about "RoK" to me is that I think of kings as highly feminized men. They wear (er... wore) dresses, they wield a lot of power over other people, they constantly mingle with other powerful people, and they're very rich. Lots of women just find that irresistible, which is too bad, because if they didn't, maybe something would have been invented during the middle ages other than the bubonic plague.

    3. Re:Facebook Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And back in the day, men wore tights. And pink was considered the color of men, until 100 years ago or so. Aside from silly historic curiosities such as this, there wasn't anything feminine about kings. Popularity with women doesn't imply being feminine, what the heck?

      The Middle Ages were a period of great invention, what the heck? If you are a white person in America thank Middle Age Europeans for the technology that let them quickly dominate the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

  25. Had no choice but to deinstall it by m.dillon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had no choice but to deinstall it on all of my Android devices. The old version no longer works and the new one wants permission to access pretty much everything I own... all my contacts, all my accounts, location, phone numbers, make phone calls and texts, god knows what else. Everything.

    It's insane. I will not give Facebook access to all of that stuff. They can go stuff it. Nor will I give third party sites FB access for validation since that also means they can snarf my friends list.

    I'm still able to run the FB app on IOS because that at least allows me to deny FB permission the access. Android though is out of the question.

    -Matt

    1. Re:Had no choice but to deinstall it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's insane. I will not give Facebook access to all of that stuff.
       
      But you give it to Google by running Android? LOLzzz!!!!!
       
      You fucks really are that stupid. Jesus H Christ...

    2. Re:Had no choice but to deinstall it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android had, but removed a permissions manager that could fine tune which permissions each app could have. There are 3rd party apps that can handle this now.

  26. I fucking hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the word moonshot. These projects are not worthy of the word moonshot. Please stop using it.

    1. Re:I fucking hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, the moonshot was nothing more than a huge political stunt built on the back of the technological impetus of WWII as well as the political inheritance of that same war. I think something like "polio shot" would be a much better expression to represent something truly amazing that actually helped tons of people, as opposed to a quasi-religious ceremony that benefited only a few test pilots in rubber underwear and early nerds in horn-rimmed glasses, crew cuts and skinny ties.

    2. Re:I fucking hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, the moonshot was nothing more than a huge political stunt built on the back of the technological impetus of WWII as well as the political inheritance of that same war. I think something like "polio shot" would be a much better expression to represent something truly amazing that actually helped tons of people, as opposed to a quasi-religious ceremony that benefited only a few test pilots in rubber underwear and early nerds in horn-rimmed glasses, crew cuts and skinny ties.

      Wow. You seem so sure about that.

  27. But they can't build anything by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neither Google nor Facebook has ever successfully built a product users will actually pay for. (Google's Nexus phones are rebranded LG, Samsung, and Asus products). For both, all significant revenue is from ads. Yet both have now acquired hardware companies. Now they have to make a business out of them. They may not succeed.

    Google acquired Motorola and had no idea what to do with it. Now they're selling it. Google has an automatic driving R&D project, but they acquired DARPA Grand Challenge technology and seem no closer to deployment than a few years ago. Google acquired a half dozen advanced robotics R&D firms, but none of those have commercial products or profits yet. Google now has to build an entire industrial business in robotics, which is slow, hard, and will take years to pay off. Google hasn't shown the corporate patience for that. Google products that didn't take off quickly are usually killed. I'm worried that Google will end up trashing the US robotics industry once they realize it's not a Make Money Fast business.

    Facebook hasn't really tried yet in hardware. But they have no expertise at it. The Oculus Rift is still a prototype/low volume device. Facebook has never run a factory. They'll have to outsource manufacturing, which means everybody else will be making goggles if it turns out to be profitable to do so.

    1. Re:But they can't build anything by Teckla · · Score: 1

      Neither Google nor Facebook has ever successfully built a product users will actually pay for.

      You mean, other than Google Apps for Business, Google App Engine, Google Drive, etc.?

    2. Re:But they can't build anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company I work for buys their mapping services. It's not glamorous and you wouldn't know it's Google's maps beneath the weather data displayed but that is the point of it. There are other companies that use these services and it's not just displaying a map to your local restaurant. Not sure if this fits in with "users" that you refer to but they do sell some products.

    3. Re:But they can't build anything by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Google acquired Motorola and had no idea what to do with it. Now they're selling it.

      I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Sell the hardware end and keep the patents.

    4. Re:But they can't build anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like chromecast? Or AppEngine?

    5. Re:But they can't build anything by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't have to make software in order to make money. About half of its revenue comes from advertising. All Google has to do is to grow the number of consumers who use the Internet. As long as Gmail, Google Search, and Android keep people using Google to search, then Google can sell ads, and then Google can make money. AdSense and AdWords are revolutionary. It's so easy to buy and sell ads using the Google system. The bottom line is to force the advance of Internet capable systems.

      That's why Google fostered Android. You can hate Android, but you can't deny that it increased the number of mobile Internet devices, and that most of those users rely upon Google services. Chrome made web-browsing more consistent, which meant that webmasters could make better pages, which meant more advertising. So Google doesn't care who makes the smart phones so long as smart phones are being made.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    6. Re:But they can't build anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google acquired Motorola and had no idea what to do with it.

      Of course they did. They wanted the patents as weaponry in the "you sue me, I sue you" game.

  28. Zukerburg didn't lie... by Stumbles · · Score: 2

    in an email interview years ago when asked about security, data privacy and such things. He said anyone is a fucking idiot to trust him; indeed you are.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  29. Yes, because it is by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    - Google lets you export ALL OF YOUR DATA, 100%, in full, in open formats.

    - Google lets you close your account and delete it, leaving no traces. This includes Google Plus and all posts shared.

    - The majority of Google's services offer open APIs and follow open standards and allow third party integrations.

    - Heck, many of their products they fully open source and give to the whole community, including Chrome, ChromeOS, Android, GWT, etc

    Compare this to facebook. You can't export anything out of facebook in any kind of open format. You can not easily delete your account, even when you do your pictures and images remain on other people's accounts. Facebook offers very few open APIs to integrate with it, they want you to instead write apps that run ON the platform so they can control and monetize everything you create.

    1. Re:Yes, because it is by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Google lets you close your account and delete it, leaving no traces

      How do you know that? Did Google offer you to audit their systems to verify what you believe?

      More likely, Google, being an enormous information gathering company that live off that information, keep all your data and add a new tidbit of information to your file mentioning that on date D, you closed your account and deleted it.

      If you truly believe Google's data retention policy is any different from Facebook's, you're delusional. And even if they say they do delete your data, they're so big and loaded with cash that nobody can ever check they really do.

      Facebook is nasty, but at least they're clean nasty. Google cloaks in a good-corporate-citizen "do no evil" bullshit but is in the same business space - massive information gathering and monetizing.

      So the best way to be sure Google has no information on you (or rather, as little as possible) is to not give them any whenever possible.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Yes, because it is by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Facebook explicitly says they do not allow you to delete your account. They simply DO NOT ALLOW IT. And all data you post on facebook is theirs, they claim ownership of it. So no wonder they don't allow you to delete it.

      Google allows you to delete your account and tells you exactly what happens when that occurs. http://www.pcworld.com/article... . And they claim ownership of nothing.

      The companies attitude toward privacy and accountability are so different it is not even in the same hemisphere.

    3. Re:Yes, because it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google only lets you delete what's live. Whatever has been backed up as routine, is not guaranteed to be deleted.

  30. Bad summary by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience

    That sounds far-fetched. My social experience involves hanging out with my family, chatting with coworkers, emailing some people, and chatting up people at the coffee shop. No Facebook whatsoever, and I doubt I'm alone.

  31. Facebook is for lazy people by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously anyone who has been on the "public" internet since say 1995 knows there are plenty of places to have "social" experiences on the internet from IRC chat to community forums. I see dedicated Facebook users as social retards who just follow the new cool trends and are too lazy to be involved in several "social" fronts on the intertubes. There``s no helping them they are who they are and will follow other to the next cool thing.

    I get more than enough social experience from running game servers and interacting with the game players, chatting on irc and visiting and posting on different interest forums.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Facebook is for lazy people by hodet · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. Facebook is socializing with people you know in the real world. I don't think anyone else has as good a platform for that. Forums are a different beast, where you mostly mingle with people you don't know with names like "future assassin" and "hodet".

      Not defending it, I don't have a fb account, but I have plenty of family who enjoy using it. Whatever floats ones boat I say.

    2. Re:Facebook is for lazy people by hodet · · Score: 1

      oh, I just realized I do have an account with a fake name. The fb slingbox client is the only way to watch my sling on Linux. heh.

    3. Re:Facebook is for lazy people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, talking with friends and family on the Internet is OK for noobs, but the really rewarding social experience is some 14 year old kid called jewhater69 screaming cuss words on a BF4 server, or talking with sweaty fat virgin men on irc and internet forums.

  32. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Then stop using it morons.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  33. Can't power themselves... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    I don't think FB will 'Power the Future' because there's a lot of stuff they simply can't get right. Take their new search. If I enter "James Bond" into a Facebook search, my expectation is that the first thing it will search is my friend's feeds, followed by the feeds of companies and organization I like, followed by public feeds - Returning "James Bond"- related Facebook posts. Instead it just does a lousy web search. Why?

    Or take ads. I'm a Facebook regular, posting daily. Yet FB has never been able to serve an ad up to me about anything I care about. Never. Not once.

    ...and my feed is just a total dog's breakfast with FB selectively choosing what to show me. I know I can pick "show recent" but the setting doesn't stick for more than 48 hours or so...

    So will they power the future? No. They can't even power themselves.

  34. Owns? by ByTor-2112 · · Score: 1

    Owns is a big stretch. They have a stake in many aspects of it, but they don't "own" it by far. And they are terrible at mobile.

  35. backlash has started against facebook by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    the young people are leaving facebook and soon the jackals will start to smell blood. None of the reasons listed to make it hard to leave facebook are really that sticky. It is not like they own your house. Next big thing and people will stampede out of facebook like they did myspace.

    1. Re:backlash has started against facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been hearing that one for 3-4 years now...

  36. Here's a Novel Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about, instead of following your "friends" from your computer in your parent's basement, you actually go hang out with your friends - talk, socialize, engage in activities, etc...

    The problem with Americans being a bunch of fat, lazy, whining slobs who can't do anything for themselves is the same problem that made FB so popular to begin with.

  37. Grow out of it by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Many people will just grow out of FB and go somewhere else. Easier to leave their account behind and start afresh somewhere else than keep it updated.

  38. sounds like meaningless finger-wagging to me by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    And that's not behavior fit for a company that's poised to take over the future

    What does 'poised to take over the future' mean, exactly? And on who's authority is 'fit behavior' defined?

    Not yours, I'd wager.

  39. Where does Facebook say that? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook explicitly says they do not allow you to delete your account.

    I left Facebook a few months ago and specifically requested deletion, not deactivation. There was a 14 day waiting period, during which time I could log back into my account and reset the clock, but supposedly at the end of those 14 days my account was gone for good. From what I can tell they still allow you to do this: "If you don't think you'll use Facebook again, you can request to have your account permanently deleted. Please keep in mind that you won't be able to reactivate your account or retrieve anything you've added."

    Frankly leaving social media was the best thing I ever did. It's a bit of a PITA with regards to those friends who seemingly only know how to communicate via FB, but even they eventually came around and started calling, texting, or e-mailing me. Only one of my friends really whined about it, because she doesn't have a cell and can't text, but she eventually got used to e-mailing me.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:Where does Facebook say that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was never a Facebook user, but had made an account. Well, eventually I went through the delete my account thing with Facebook. MUCH later than 14 days (something like 3 months), I was trying to find information about a friend I lost contact with. Googling turned up some possibilities on Facebook, but I couldn't see the details because I wasn't logged into Facebook. So I logged in with my old details, and I got a "welcome back" from Facebook, and all my content (what little there was) was still there. So, I don't believe they delete anything.

    2. Re:Where does Facebook say that? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I was never a Facebook user, but had made an account.

      ?????I think I know what you are trying to say but if you did 'delete' account in the same style as you described your relationship with this great company than most likely the account was still there.

      I personally had a problem with deleting the account. It was not clear how to do it and easy to find the way other than google it. I could not delete the account originally because even if I remembered my pwd for reasons I did not understand I had to provide my mobile number or some such to recover account details. I managed to delete it and indeed the account was gone - at least I could not use my credentials anymore. As I did not believe they really deleted it I registered again and tried to see my old account and it was not there. But here I was with a new account - I let it stay there to be sure my ex does not do some nasty impersonating thing but for that there are plenty other platforms so I guess that is not good enough argument. Still for work related stuff people look at FB so it is better to lock your presence there in a way that cannot be directly abused with nasty photos (of which some may even be real....). This much said you can delete your FB account. Whether they delete all data from it and do not sell it to other companies is of course another matter. I think Z. is not in criminal domain yet but I would not hesitate with tar and feathers given a chance of course...

    3. Re:Where does Facebook say that? by 0xG · · Score: 1

      Facebook explicitly says they do not allow you to delete your account.

      "If you don't think you'll use Facebook again, you can request to have your account permanently deleted. Please keep in mind that you won't be able to reactivate your account or retrieve anything you've added."

      Deactivation != Deletion

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
  40. "I suppose I will get a Facebook account now" JC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Facebook wasn't good enough for John Carmack before he was offered bags of money, I'll just have to be patient and wait for my bags of money before I start using Facebook too.

  41. The same with all Information companies by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon, and all the other information companies do the same. They collect your data they analyze it and they try to sell your pattern to everybody who can pay for it. So why single out Facebook? Facebook most likely has the biggest problem in terms of reputation, but soon other companies reputation will be harmed too. The only problem that could happen to Facebook is another online-application which is able replace it without providing adverts to the users. Most likely Facebook would by such company to prevent it from happening.

  42. nonsense by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

    Facebook is transitioning from a simple social network to a full-fledged technology company that rivals Google

    In what world is Facebook a full-fledged technology company that rivals Google? Let's see what each company offers me:
    Google's search engine was a big thing when it started; it meant that you didn't have to use a shitload of search engines to find stuff (meta-search engines, anyone?) and now it rightfully dominates this market. Google gave me free email that didn't suck (well maybe some redesigns did) and has tons of space: people left Hotmail and never had to look back. Google Maps and Earth are just mind-blowing if you come to think of it, so I don't really have to comment on those. Google bought YouTube, and now serves us our vids, too. Google has stuff like the Google Art project that produces high-quality scans of artwork around the globe and silently delivers them to Wikipedia, so that we can all enjoy them for free. Google produced the OS that powers my phone and its browser, so that we get some diversity at least in the mobile world and don't get MS and Apple dominating that market as well (admittedly, it gets boring).

    With Facebook, I can stay in touch with my friends that are in remote locations, upload my photos for them to see, and watch theirs. There is also some simple gaming going on (I'm not into it, but lots of people are). Oh, and with Instagram I can apply crappy filters to my photos. All these things, btw, I can do with Google+, but Google was late in the social media space, so I prefer FB since pretty much everybody that I know is already there.

    FB is not a fully fledged tech company, they are a website for wasting your time. That's about it. I don't care how many little old ladies play candy crush or whatever the newest hot app is on FB, this won't make them a tech company unless they start developing some new tech. Continuously. If Google has been as stagnant as FB they wouldn't have gone past the development of their search engine.

    1. Re:nonsense by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IAll these things, btw, I can do with Google+, but Google was late in the social media space, so I prefer FB since pretty much everybody that I know is already there.

      That and the fact that G+ sucks arse. If G+ was exactly like Facebook, then Facebook would already be dead. Instead Google ran their nerd wand over it and made a complete mess of an interface that no-one can figure out what is going on. I prefer FB because the interface makes sense, and both my children and parents can use it without asking for help. G+ fails that test miserably.

  43. Coke or Pepsi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple or Microsoft?

    At least with the Google/FB paradigm, pretty much everybody classes them both with at least some level of distrust.

  44. law of physics by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Here's a new law of physics. If your CEO is hated by everyone in the world, your company is screwed. Oh, hi, Facebook and Zuckerberg. He's an arrogant, privacy-hating hate magnet. He's openly stated that he doesn't care about pissing off the users. The board should fire that hoodie-wearing disease and turn Facebook around. Then he can go hang out with John McAfee, Steve Balmer, Meg Whitman (people hate her, look it up), and um...Hitler in their own little hate club on their own little island.

  45. Facebook Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No trust in Facebook, Google nor Google's minion, Yahoo.. All 3 could care less about individual privacy, needs or desires. All they want is traffic to generate revenue.

  46. Dear Facebook by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    FUCK YOU.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  47. Deactiviation != Deletion by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    You doubtless used the deactivation feature, not the deletion feature. The former is the default, and Facebook doesn't go out of their way to advertise the existence of the latter, but it's there and you can take advantage of it. I've tried to log into my account with my old password, no dice, and "forgot password" doesn't work either when I provide my e-mail address.

    Of course, that isn't to say that they don't still have copies of my data floating around, though their data use policy seems to suggest they really do delete most of it: When you delete your account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook. It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days. You should only delete your account if you are sure you never want to reactivate it. You can delete your account at: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account Certain information is needed to provide you with services, so we only delete this information after you delete your account. Some of the things you do on Facebook aren’t stored in your account, like posting to a group or sending someone a message (where your friend may still have a message you sent, even after you delete your account). That information remains after you delete your account.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  48. Going to disagree slightly . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    Facebook does allow users to "delete" their accounts. I'm sure ithey're not deleted out of backups and archives. However, the issue of a former user having a "ghost" of themselves on their systems isn't as valuable as you might think just because a snapshot of yourself obviously isn't a reflection of your current self (since we all change over time). The information is valuable if it's accurate/up-to-date. I can imagine a situation where a college user with Democratic leanings deletes their account and becomes Republican after graduation (common). That ghost profile is not worth much. If you don't like them, don't use anything Facebook owns. Very likely they're on the wrong side of history and we'll look back at a bizarre time when Americans were jumping up and down screaming about privacy while updating their Facebook profiles. Quitting Facebook is very easy, most people you know will just send you SMS messages or Apple iChat messages. It's more convenient anyhow. Personally, I don't get why anyone would still use Facebook, it's so noisy and gaudy - I find nothing intellectual about the experience.

  49. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've quit Facebook over privacy concerns and my ghost still remains...

    Absinthia Stacy

  50. And to think things were better just ten years ago by Rexdude · · Score: 2

    Remember RSS feeds? Back in the day when Feedburner wasn't owned by Facebook, you could install a desktop client or the sorely missed Google Reader to stay in touch with the sites and blogs that you felt were important. You had total control over what you wanted to read or subscribe to. If you ran a website, you put up an orange RSS icon, or let Firefox auto detect the feed and let the user decide what they wanted. RSS was (is) an open standard for publishing updates to a web site.
    I would've said that Twitter & Facebook have killed it completely, but let's face it, RSS never really went mainstream. Google did not do enough to popularize Reader - just a core bunch of users wailed when they decided to shut down the service. Even Facebook had an RSS feed of the wall back in 2008 before they changed it to the 'news' feed format. Probably not the first time an open technology standard was thwarted by a large company, and won't be the last.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  51. p2p social messaging system by kevlar_rat · · Score: 2

    Perhaps there is already someone doing this?

    Yes, there are a number: diaspora, Friendica, and an emerging system based around RSS, this type of thing is usually called the federated social web. This is my own overview.

    meta data and messaging data is spread around different peers as encrypted chunks

    This is my proposal for exactly that

  52. federated social networks by kevlar_rat · · Score: 2

    federated social networks will go the same way e-mail has gone: yes, there's tons of minor e-mail servers, but a few large companies control a very large fraction of e-mail traffic (espeically for personal use) because running a server is hard.

    For a federated system based on an open protocol, it should be possible to have a desktop client which installs in a few clicks. You can install a mail server yourself, of course, but the main barrier to this is needing a domain name pointing to it. For a desktop 'node' of a P2P system, either it is always on, or you have a name resolution system built into the protocol, or you have to have a domain name and a static IP (or use a dyndns service). All of these have downsides. A workaround is to use the email system as a transport layer. Email servers then effectively act as proxies.

    Another problem with a p2p service is that p2p networks require more processor and network usage than centralized services, so they make poor applications for mobile devices.

    Well, with the federated model you would just visit a website. If the protocol allowed it, you could use a desktop app on your PC and a website on your mobile with the same account.

  53. how to get blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post a comment negative about Jews. Facebook will make it impossible for you to log in. You are blocked. But why do that? Just delete your account.

  54. Yes, it's called "e-mail". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's called "e-mail".

  55. As ye sow by paiute · · Score: 1

    Anyone who knows the origin story of Facebook knows not to trust Facebook.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  56. Re:And to think things were better just ten years by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    To be fair RSS was hitting mainstream when it go whacked. It was where Bluetooth was right before the headset rage set in (2003?) and pulled it out of the limbo it had been in between the wants of nerds and the cheapness of manufacturers and most consumers. The 4 factors that hurt RSS in my mind were: 1. non-obvious pronunciation to laymen/not memorable name- even Bluetooth, Firefox, and Google are easier to remember. 2. Similarly it's lack of corporate co-opting and the ensuing pitch as the "next big thing"; good or bad this often pushes tech into the public eye. 4. The post-Chrome seemingly desperate obsession of existing browser providers to seem hip by eliminating and UI elements not used 100% of users. If back and forwards buttons are tossed in the dumpster RSS had no chance in hell. And finally, like you suggested a bit of 1 + 2 in Facebook. A good enough, and for casual users simpler integrated option that also worked for other needs like photo sharing and discussion postings in a presumed safe environment.

  57. Or with "Nederlandse Vereining van Hobby-Varkenhou by Optali · · Score: 1

    for that matter.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  58. Re:Or with "Nederlandse Vereining van Hobby-Varken by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Watch it, cheesehead.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  59. Zontar, it's "happy pills time" (lol) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zontar's "touched in the head" by schizophrenic multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... now go take those meds, you whacko!

  60. Re:And to think things were better just ten years by neminem · · Score: 1

    In what way exactly has rss been "thwarted"? I've used it since forever. I still use it. The vast majority of the sites I care about support it. Google Reader's demise was pretty lame, but there are more better rss readers now than there were a year ago, for obvious reasons.

  61. Zontar = sockpuppeteer & lying libeling troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.

    Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!

    ---

    You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...

    ---

    Why, Lastly?

    You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):

    "The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!

    (Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)

    ... apk