Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Threatens To Delete Users' Photos If They Don't Install Moments app (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson, reporting for BetaNews: Not content with forcing people into using its Messenger app, Facebook is continuing its aggressive tactics and driving users to install its photo-sharing app, Moments. The social network has warned users that their photos face deletion if they fail to use the Moments app. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a huge surge in interest in the app, pushing it to the top of the download charts. Facebook says it is going to delete Synced Albums and Synced Photos if Moments is not installed by July 7, sending warning emails to a number of users. This has understandably led to panic installations of Moments as people sought to protect the photos that have been automatically synchronized from their phone. It's important to note that it is only these synced photos that are at risk, but it's clear that there is an element of confusion about what Facebook is planning to delete.
"only these synced photos that are at risk, but it's clear that there is an element of confusion about what Facebook is planning to delete."
No, it's clear that you should not use Facebook for informaiton you care about, or at all if you care about your privacy.
the reason why you should never trust data you want to keep with a third party.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Is that a promise? Hope so.
The only winning move is not to play.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Delete them. I won't upload photos to Facebook anymore. End of issue.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
are left to wonder, is this cycle of trust, greed, and betrayal an inextricable part of the experience? Is the lennart pottering libertarian stance of "well no ones making you use it" simply how we're to approach these cabals of internet service? They do no wrong, offer a service, and we're to accept the illusion of choice?
shouldnt we, the product of sites like facebook, have more say in how the site is managed or what happens to our data? or are these sites just doomed to decline, obsolescence, and venture capital buyout without any accountability for the years of activity they had on the web vis-a-vis AOL?
Good people go to bed earlier.
I deleted all my photos and replaced my profile picture with a picture of me flipping the bird. Now they don't have anything to hold over my head. Your move FaceBook.
Perhaps with enough threats like this my "deactivated" account will one day actually be deleted like I would prefer
Is that a smartphone-only thing? Will computer users have their photos deleted?
Can anyone think of a synonym for "network" that begins with the letter "S"?
Anti-Social S????? (ASS.com)
You can bet that if FB is forcing this issue then they have some kind of spyware in it. Facial recognition, anyone? Glad I'm not on FB. I encourage all my friends to vacate NSA's premise, err...I mean FB.
they mean, remove them from your ability to access them.
I'm guessing they're probably planning on holding onto them, and using them for pattern training, facial recognition and future blackmail..
For facebook, you are the product, not the customer. I don't get it why people think otherwise and then first use it and after that get upset if they get treated like a product.
Don't make a facebook account, that's it.
Thank you.
This is only the beginning of the systematic rape of users and their data. Once tech companies have passed certain milestones in terms of size and user base, this power they hold over the plumbing infallibly goes to their collective heads.
Just as Microsoft with the Windows 10 upgrades. It's merely a confirmation that we must find ways around entrusting our digital assets to such 'for-profit' outfits. They're obviously banking their entire business model on the fact that they will be able to monetize the user data for far more than what it's costing them, offering "free" as a way to entice them in.
While it's not sexy, there needs to be the open-source equivalent, sort of what Android is to Windows but for social networks. Something that is community-supported, and allows people more freedom, even if the price is less curation and more chaos. Sort of like... The Internet?
I actually am glad - my wife posted family photos a while back (years ago, we don't make that mistake anymore), and maybe now that FB is threatening this, we'll get those old ones removed (at least from public access), too.
Mark, keep this up! I simply can't wait until FB starts deleting other sections of your account for not installing other apps. First FB Messenger, now FB Moments, what's next? FB Graph?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Facebook is fine so long as you do not use it for social networking. Great for cat pictures, great for liking random products. Just do not use it for anything personal.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Aside from the obvious "all your base are belong to us" great way to alienate users that don't use a mobile platform.
Or those that don't trust os level permissions allowed on just about any of them.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I don't have facebook. And this is why. I don't make broken shit, I don't buy broken shit. Professional ethics.
Well, first off? I don't think there's any point in trying to twist this into some sort of "anti libertarian" rant ... implying it's libertarian philosophies which cause sites like Facebook to act the way they do.
IMO, this has nothing to do with politics, unless you're going to go so far as to say you feel social media, cloud drive storage, cloud backup and other such offerings should all be run only by the government or strictly regulated under government control. (I suppose that's ONE way to try to force these entities not to delete your data against your will or suddenly go out of business without adequate provisions for recovering your data first, or ??)
But otherwise, no ... the truth is the same as ever. If someone offers you a service at no charge, you really have no say when it comes to not liking the way the service is performed, or any changes made to the rules of how the free service gets offered. Your options include discontinuing use of the service, complying with whatever rules and demands are placed upon it to continue using it, or spending money for alternatives (which could include building your own).
That said? I see no harm in complaining when you're unhappy. If nothing else, Facebook management needs to hear the opinions of the user-base. If it's clear that a change is so strongly disliked, it causes a lot of people to stop using it -- at least they can't pretend not to understand why it happened. And maybe ... just maybe, it will cause them to rethink a bad idea once in a while and preserve the service as a little more friendly to use.
Nobody cares what your cat looks like or what you ate for breakfast. Facebook is saving you the trouble of deleting them.
Deleted? I have a hard time believing they delete any private information about users, including pictures. More like, they'll take your pictures offline so they still have your data, but you can't access it anymore.
Always wondered how I could make sure that my photos really did get removed after ditching the platform. Now they are doing it for me. :)
Track your fitness and strength gains with www.trackmytraining.net
This is only the beginning...of the anti-social network
You think this is the beginning of the antisocial network? Zuckerberg, the highly socially skilled coder, thinks you're a dumbfuck: http://www.businessinsider.com...
With story after story about the above, and Facebook's treatment of its users, all the privacy problems, etc ... anyone who continues to use it falls under at least one of two categories: they enjoy the abuse, or they're morons.
You would have to be pretty stupid to be on the world's most massive and well-connected global communications network, and still think you need a particular web site to communicate.
Only ignorant people keep on using Facebook these days.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
"This has understandably led to panic installations of Moments " Like their photos are worth twiddly shit.
Otherwise they'll start deleting your C:\users\ directory if you don't upgrade to Windows 10.
I know that americans firmly believe that it's the god-given right of companies to screw them any way they like, but it doesn't work that way in the rest of the world, particularly not in the EU.
Here companies have a legal duty of care to the public which is codified in a large number of consumer and data protection laws, and those laws have teeth.
A company has the right to implement anything they want on their own machinery, but that right doesn't extend to the machinery of others. They don't own their user's equipment and so they can't mandate that a user install anything on it. Even less can they threaten users with destruction of data or loss of access if they fail to comply with what appears to be an unlawful request.
Facebook runs a web service, not an end-to-end delivery service running on set-top boxes or other equipment leased from Facebook over which they could have legal control. In trying to assert control over equipment which they do not own, they appear to have exceeded the boundaries of their legal rights. The threats just make it worse.
That's all it really is. You're basically entrusting your data with companies that have to somehow make money off you or off your data.
So don't be surprised when they pull crap like this on you.
So can someone explain if the following is true as it's my understanding:
* Facebook can be configured to automatically sync photos from your mobile device.
* That makes it super quick to share a photo. (and probably gives Facebook access to all your photos without user intervention)
* Now Facebook will discard the server side copy of photos that you never shared or put into an album unless you install moments?
Sorry if I've got my facts wrong, though it's so hard to work out the actual facts when 99% of discussion is Facebook bashing rather than fact discussing.
(No fan of Facebook policies here myself, just annoyed at how hard it is to work out what's going on outside of "Facebook = evil")
It's turtles all the way down.
I've read and done term searching on FaceBook's ToS. Nothing in their ToS states that you have given them the right to DESTROY your copyrighted material.
Sue their ass under the DMCA for violating and destroying your copyright. They voted for this law, time to put it to use against them.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I wouldn't care if Facebook deleted everything but how many people don't use Facebook via a phone? I refuse to use apps that have access to my contact lists, sms messages, and call history.
Yuck! Have a little standard there!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...said the AC.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The definition of irony: people arguing with each other on Facebook -- a platform whose founder considers them all 'dumbfucks' and has said as much -- about whether or not Trump has "finally gone too far this time."
Serves people right for using Facebook.
Grovel, you worthless worms, and swear fealty to the Almighty Zuckerberg!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Sometimes I avoid doing things without a clear logical reason... like photo synching with cloud stuff. Every cloud company is trying to get at my photos, but not everything is something I want on a server somewhere... so I never did it and found the push to do it by various apps to be annoying. I pay for Dropbox, so I'm not being a Luddite. I was just unwilling to upload my pictures automatically to everything everywhere.
Good to see that my not-completely-rational avoidance of these things can have a rational basis. Between this and Apple's cloud music problem, I'm in no rush to give up control of my content to a third party.
On that note, imagine for a moment if Facebook were to replace all of your photos with generic whitewashed sitcom versions of the same thing, starring actors with perfect teeth and hair. Wouldn't that be creepy? That's basically what Apple did to people's cloud synched music. Unique, hard to find versions of specific songs... potentially lost forever, replaced with whatever official version Apple has.
Honestly the whole thing is creepy when you get down to it. Even Microsoft's effort to force installs of Windows 10. What's going on in Silicon Valley (or Redmond/or this generation of the tech sector in general)?!
Facebook is great if you're a marketer. They are a data/ad company, not a social network.
No its not - I have a web based business that has thousands of likes for our products on the facebook page but even during the period when we were getting the most likes, they never translated into actual sales or noticeably extra visits to our website.
In my case, I saw a very low conversion rate between between likes and resulting extra traffic - let alone actual sales.
Who would be stupid enough to use FaceBook or any of its clones for personal stuff ? Why not post their pictures and their lives in the newspaper while they are at it ? (And they must not fail to advertise when they are abroad).
This is to be used only for bland avatars, left rotting in the wind after a few days/weeks, with all advertising blocked.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I am always amazed at how companies get just so big, and then begin the slow downward spiral. Some may do it it much faster but eventually they commit a series of bad decisions that eventually causes it's demise. Maybe it's because many have stock holders to answer too, or it's the companies desperate need for more money. Facebook to me was never more than a brilliant way of data mining people's information and using the format to push ads and other targeted commerce towards the end users. Since Facebook depends not on the user for direct support, but only on their information.
Of course Facebook will force whatever it needs too onto that user.
How many Facebook apps do we need? Isn't one buggy, battery draining, privacy invading app enough? If I want Facebook I just use my phone's browser now. They've tried to make it harder for you if you want to use private browsing sessions, but then that justs add to my feeling of enough is enough!
Facebook looks as if it is rapidly becoming a walled community, a platform separate from the rest of the Internet.
You pretty much deserve what happens to you.
Yeah.. I have trouble understanding why people buy, sell, trade "likes" y'know, from places that promise to get you tons of them etc. In the real world, instead of Zuckerworld, people buy and sell items of actual value. But what the hell value doe a "like" have? I heard recently about one of your American candidates buying tens of thousands (could have been hundreds of thousands, I don't recall) of "likes" and I say, whatever for?
This is why I don't store files on 3rd party servers. Because I run my own server, I can be sure that nothing like this will ever happen and that nobody has access to my stuff unless I want them to.
I'm glad I have actual friends and so was never suckered into the whole "social" media thing.
Touche!
That still doesn't explain what is a synced photo and how it differs from an uploaded photo.
Oh, and who reported it? is there real evidence? Because if this is real, why didn't a lot of users get the same 'threath'..
Reading the original article I don't even see a decent Source, I even see it has a badly written email which I think is even more a fishing mail than a real mail from facebook..
To me, this just looks more like the original article write wanted some extra traffic to his site without really investigating the actual claim if it's true..
What about users, which only use the website?