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!?
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.
Perhaps with enough threats like this my "deactivated" account will one day actually be deleted like I would prefer
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Since it apparently only affects synced photos, yeah, apparently, it is a smartphone only thing. That much is in the summary.
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.
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.