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."
How quaint...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
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.
"Facebook owns virtually all the aspects of the social experience..''
Nonsense. They don't own my living room.
Uh... no. They would LIKE to, but seriously - Places is the Google+ of the Facebook universe.
#DeleteChrome
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.
Would I get to make movies like "Airplane"? Surely, you can't be serious?
https://xkcd.com/1150/
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.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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
especially not entities who's focus is profit
His users are morons. You'd have to be to share personal data in Facebook.
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
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.
It's a large building with lots of doctors, but that's not important right now.
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
the word moonshot. These projects are not worthy of the word moonshot. Please stop using it.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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*
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!")
Then stop using it morons.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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?
...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...
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.
So will they power the future? No. They can't even power themselves.
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.
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.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RoK is woman hating shite. Exposing Feminism and The Anti White Knight Coalition are doing just fine, thanks.
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.
FUCK YOU.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
Moderated Usenet
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.
Moderated Usenet
Anyone who knows the origin story of Facebook knows not to trust Facebook.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
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.
for that matter.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Watch it, cheesehead.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.