Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Book Argues Silicon Valley Will Lead Us to Our Doom (sandiegouniontribune.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the online-overlords dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader Zorro quotes the San Diego Union-Tribune: To many Americans, large technology firms embody much of what's good about the modern world. Franklin Foer has a different perspective. In his new book, "World Without Mind," the veteran journalist lays out a more ominous view of where Big Tech would like to take us -- in many ways, already has taken us... These firms have a program: to make the world less private, less individual, less creative, less human... Big Tech has imposed its will on the resident population with neither our input nor our permission.
The reviewer summarizes the book's argument as "Once hooked, consumers are robbed of choice, milked for profit, deprived of privacy and made the subjects of stealth social engineering experiments."

Interestingly, Foer was fired from The New Republic in 2014 by its new publisher -- Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes -- and Foer's new book includes strong criticism of the way companies are assembling detailed profiles on their users. "They have built their empires by pulverizing privacy; they will further ensconce themselves by pushing boundaries, by taking even more invasive steps that build toward an even more complete portrait of us."

85 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Only if we let them... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I myself have no Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or otherwise social media presence. You hand over power over you because you believe you get something back, but that something is often just an illusion.

    1. Re: Only if we let them... by lucasnate1 · · Score: 3

      I only expose what I want myself in social metworks. in return I occasionally get a fuck or a job offer. Feels like a good deal to me (note: I never upload pics and rarely report my position).

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    2. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.

    3. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you have friends? Family? People you just happen to know?

      The problem is that it's becoming increasingly impossible to avoid being on social media, even if you never use it yourself. Other people posting pictures of you, combined with facial recognition, means it's possible for social media networks to know quite a bit about you without you ever using them yourself.

      As data mining technique improve, this is only going to get worse. Simply existing is going to be enough for companies to build profiles on you, regardless of whether you yourself use their services. It's not enough to not use the services yourself, you need to make sure no one you know ever posts anything about you as well.

    4. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congratulations on making yourself an outcast. I'm against the whole craze myself but what can one do when the vast majority has already decided? You want to shut yourself out, it's your right but it doesn't make any difference. The war for privacy is over and we lost. Staying out counts only as sulking, they already have your profile whether you like it or not. You have to ask yourself, as I did, is it worth it? Becoming an outcast in the name of a principle nobody cares for?

    5. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you get is... (things I've gotten as a result of using social media)

      Job
      Laid (twice!)
      Made new friends, both local and far away
      Connected again with old friends
      Favors from people helping me to build my business
      Learned about new useful websites and aps
      Introduced to new products that I eventually bought
      Planning a vacation with my old friend from England I would have no other way of contacting otherwise (hopefully getting laid on that on too!)
      Just general enjoying conversations

      I understand the privacy implications, but the benefits certainly outweigh them.

    6. Re:Only if we let them... by Archtech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Congratulations on making yourself an outcast. I'm against the whole craze myself but what can one do when the vast majority has already decided?

      I am amazed to see such sentiments expressed on /. Here I was thinking that slashdotters were inner-directed, free-thinking, independent minds. But apparently at least one is just a herd animal.

      Try visiting

      https://thoreau.eserver.org/

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    7. Re:Only if we let them... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, it may be too late. We've already handed over control of almost all public discourse to private companies, companies which are free to censor that discourse at will. They're already using that power to censor ideas from the right that they disagree with. And many leftists are celebrating that, championing it even. But that's a mistake they'll regret.

      You see, what these anti-"hate speech" leftists have failed to consider is "what ideas are going to be censored next?" Do you really think that this handful of super-powerful corporations who you've ceded control to are going to tolerate anti-capitalist rhetoric, or calls for higher wages, worker rights, higher corporate taxes, and unions? Ha, not for long! And you've been the one who championed them having the the right to censor, never thinking that power could be turned against YOU too. But once they've banned the "Nazis" you can bet they'll come after the "Communists" and "Socialists" next. And you Bernie bros will end up just as cut off from all the major social media outlets as your bad-guy-du-jour Milo Yianopolis.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here I was thinking that slashdotters were inner-directed, free-thinking, independent minds. But apparently at least one is just a herd animal.

      We are herd animals. Marketers, publicists, public relations peoples, sales people, politicians, clergy, tel-evangelists, and what have you, use that fact to their advantage. Slashdotters are some of the biggest herd animals. Watch this: Elon Musk is not an innovative genius. He has done nothing to deserve that reputation - even though his publicists did a very good job in creating that image of him. See what happens next - and no, I really think that.

      The only way to resist manipulation is to accept that one is a herd animal and think long and hard about what's going on inside.

      And the only way I was able to get through Thoreau in school was with the Cliff notes. God, he's boring!

    9. Re:Only if we let them... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say they're privacy oriented, like I am. What can you do? The same thing that people have done in the past, refuse to participate in it. Something is only lost when you give up, as it stands there is no "social media" presence for me out there. I don't exist at all among social media networks or anything else. It's not hard to do and still keep a large enough social and work network. If anything, I see more people going back to face-to-face social networking because they're tired of all the inane, pointless, bullshit drama that happens on every single platform.

      You have to ask yourself, as I did, is it worth it? Becoming an outcast in the name of a principle nobody cares for?

      Sure is. The real question is, are you a person who can hang onto their principals while others are throwing theirs to the wind?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same AC.

      About the privacy stuff, why should I fucking care? I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care. And besides, it's not like I'm revealing any extremely dark secrets on there.

      About the friend on England, international calls and texts are still really expensive, email is slow, and snail mail? Expensive and extremely slow. Fb and whatsapp are convenient, free, and instantaneous. Can't beat that.

    11. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a difference between acknowledging that surveillance exists and willingly participating in your own surveillance.

    12. Re: Only if we let them... by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As if the right wing never supported corporatism and censorship

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    13. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the right does it, it's honest, hard-working business owners exercising their rights to choose how to do business and who to do it with.

    14. Re:Only if we let them... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      The problem is that you also expose your information just by existing, unless everyone else you interact with ALSO abstains from the use of social media.

      And you probably have a credit card, and a driver's license. Maybe you entered a contest once.

      I try to stay out as best I can, but last year someone else tagged me in a photo and now I am easily Googled. Of course, there were already shadow profiles of me out there, but now they have my face, and who knows how many public sources of faces they'll be scanning 10 years from now?

      Privacy is gone, because morons can't give up on the idea that the world needs to know what they ate for breakfast this morning.

    15. Re:Only if we let them... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Facebook has no magical power to extract information from your mind that you didn't explicitly hand over to it. The choice is yours.

    16. Re: Only if we let them... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Just try to find a distant phone number without the help of social media. This was not easy even back in the days when telcos printed phone books, which could be found in larger libraries. A carefully controlled release of contact information to social media is the best way to help other people find you, and you to find them. Facebook was originally designed as a way for school alumni to find each other for reunions.

      When we overshare on social media, the adverse consequences are our own fault. Just like all the other times, we are in the process of integrating this new tech into culture, and doing this well means becoming educated in how revealed personal information can be misused.

    17. Re: Only if we let them... by west · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > Most HR offices will trash your resume if they can't find your facebook page.

      Is there *anyone* who works in HR who can actually confirm a resume trashed for lack of social media contacts? This sounds like a folk-tale to me, but then perhaps the world has changed.

      I know people who've been approached via Linked-In to good effect, but I've never heard of anyone whose failed to get an interview because they don't have a Linked-In (or FB) profile (and I work in tech).

    18. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care.

      And you never will be, provided that your philosophies and ambitions are in any way opposed by these large (and growing) corporations. You've helpfully provided them with the ammunition to spin whatever story they want about you and publicize this far and wide, should you ever become a problem for them.

      Would you like to run for office or spearhead a political movement? It had better be compatible with the corporate charter of this small handful of corporations, or they'll sink it before it leaves port.

      Information is power and Google/Facebook are approaching omniscience. Meanwhile, they don't "fucking care" about you or your wellbeing. That is why you should "fucking care".

    19. Re:Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure is. The real question is, are you a person who can hang onto their principals while others are throwing theirs to the wind?

      Maybe people shouldn't be throwing their principals into the wind. It's the principle of it.

    20. Re:Only if we let them... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      It's only potentially a privacy violation if you can be readily identified anyway. A photo of a random person taken at an unspecified date and time could ostensibly be a photo of any of thousands of people who have, at some point in the past, looked enough like that photo when shot at that angle, so long as those people have been in that city at the right time of year between when the building in the background was built and torn down. If there are no trees, then the time of year doesn't matter. If there are no identifiable buildings, then it could have been taken at any time (ignoring identifiable changes in film chemistry, DPI, etc.) over the course of many decades, anywhere in the world, so the potential list of candidates is huge.

      What makes it a privacy problem in the modern age is that the photo has a precise timestamp, and Facebook has so much data about which family members of each possible candidate were in a given city on that date that they can guess who is in the photo with reasonable accuracy, and thus de-anonymize what would otherwise be a photo of an anonymous person. That is the privacy violation—not the picture itself, but rather the giant repository of data that can be trivially used to unmask people who wish to remain anonymous.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re: Only if we let them... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      As if the right wing never supported corporatism and censorship

      Yes, and it's a mistake for either side. The right has taken an unfortunate "Private business should be free to do anything it wants" attitude that has played a role in this shitty situation too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:Only if we let them... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. I also abandoned so-called 'social media' a long time ago now, and have no plans to go back to it. I also 'push back' on their 'pushing boundaries' in whatever ways I can -- and encourage others to do the same.

    23. Re: Only if we let them... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No one really 'finds' my facebook page.
      Everything is set to private and I only accept friend requests from RL friends and Aikidoka, I somewhat know.

      If a HR department would access FB pages of applicants they would be sued into oblivion, literally. The people working there, doing it would risk to be unemployable for life as HR people.

      No idea if you are a retard or live in a fucked up country where such behaviour could/would be legal :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About the privacy stuff, why should I fucking care? I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care. And besides, it's not like I'm revealing any extremely dark secrets on there.

      You're right about that, for now. Do you know how this information about yourself will be used in 10 years? Or how it could be used? Because the only reason you're not important enough right now is because the cost of exploiting your information is too high. That will change.

    25. Re:Only if we let them... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But they do have the power to extract information about you that other people submit. If you have any friends or family who are keen Facebook users, then the chances are they already have a shadow profile which contains a reasonably accurate (likely incomplete) fiends list.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:Only if we let them... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd say they're privacy oriented, like I am. What can you do? The same thing that people have done in the past, refuse to participate in it. Something is only lost when you give up, as it stands there is no "social media" presence for me out there. I don't exist at all among social media networks or anything else. It's not hard to do and still keep a large enough social and work network.

      You have a presence in social media even if you've never created an account. You know those little 'f' icons you see on websites which link back to Facebook? They're not a link. They're a script which sets a cookie or examines your cookies to uniquely identify your computer. When you visit slashdot, that 'f' icon in the upper right tells Facebook that user #51853601342 has visited slashdot. And they add it to their database with all other sites user #51853601342.

      Then one day a friend of yours sends you a Facebook invite via email. You happen to click on it to delete it (instead of doing a select-delete) which causes it to load in your browser, and now Facebook knows that user #51853601342 is yourname@gmail.com. They start cross-referencing your name with comments, other friend requests, public documents, etc. And now Facebook knows who you are, where you live, who your family is, who your friends are, what you look like (thanks to photo face ID), where you work, who your co-workers are, and how much you make. All without you having an account.

      It's not enough to avoid creating social media accounts. You also have to run script blockers specifically targeting these tracking scripts (e.g. Ghostery) and/or browse in incognito mode at all times.

    27. Re: Only if we let them... by saloomy · · Score: 1

      What a load of horseshit.

      1. Those large companies still have to follow laws of the land, which are written and decided upon by our chosen representatives (at least here in the US). Remember, it's your vote that puts them there collectively.

      2. You don't have to join anything or participate in shit. You can if you want to, but you don't have to. Most people have. Your complaining because the herd went in one direction and you don't want to follow, but you don't want to be alone? Take your self-riteous horseshit and do what you will, but don't complain that others have done what they will. Join, or don't. You still have the choice, don't moan and bitch because you don't like your choices.

      3. Computers are the biggest boosters of intelligence we know. We are collectively smarter and more capable than our civilization has ever been in history by leaps and bounds; both on an individual level and as a whole. We have known the longest period of major peacetime since WW2, are feeding more people than ever thought possible, moving right along to renewable energy, and gearing up to take the next steps in human space travel.

      If Silicon Valley was taking us to a bad place, no one would follow. Once they embark on bad places, people will leave. Don't underestimate the drive people have to do what's best for them.

      The future is brighter and better than ever. We just have to stay the course.

    28. Re: Only if we let them... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I myself HAVE twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. accounts and they have no power over me whatsoever. People do not need to fear such things, you can always reveal as much or as little as you choose.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    29. Re: Only if we let them... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I occasionally get a fuck... and rarely report my position

      For that we thank you.

    30. Re: Only if we let them... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I've had a lot of jobs and a lot of fucks, all during the social media period (2006 - present)... None of them came from social media. The internet? Plenty came from there. Some even came from IRL socializing. Still never gave anything up to FB or the other Twits.

      Sounds like a better deal than what you're getting.

    31. Re: Only if we let them... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      For me personally, I already was an outcast. I seek out groups of similarly minded outcasts who have better ways of doing things than society at large. Plenty of them use Facebook but not having an account there has never caused problems for me. I have experienced nothing but inclusion since I went outside normies for my social needs.
      it's almost as if... you don't have to do dumb things just because most other people do.

    32. Re:Only if we let them... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You have a presence in social media even if you've never created an account. You know those little 'f' icons you see on websites which link back to Facebook?

      No. I have no idea what you're talking about.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re: Only if we let them... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It's not even just about what Facebook might do with it. Do you trust the data to be secured so that no one steals it? What about when Facebook allows anyone with money to manipulate huge chunks of the population, like they did most famously with last year's election? We haven't even experienced the full implications of social media tracking yet.

    34. Re:Only if we let them... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.

      Did anyone ever notice, back in 2001, that every group you communicated or traded with (as list-d above) – all suddenly wanted your cell phone number, when they never had before? Did anyone else notice this sudden change?

      Consumer-data firms absolutely love cell phone numbers. They are a unique identifier that is not illegal to use (as SSN & CC# are). Cell phone numbers are an extremely powerful correlate to whatever other little scraps if data might accompany it.

      I stopped giving my phone number out to anyone unless it was central to the relationship. For about 10 years. Well, now, big data is very big, and everybody and their mother is selling your info, which is later correlated with other data, and your cell phone number is one of the most high-confidence correlates. I have given up.

      YOU DO HAVE A FB PROFILE, even if you never created one. They follow people around the web (via cookies, etc.), and build a profile of you whether you like it or not. Sign up, and you might see how creepy-much they have.

      There are hundreds of these 'Consumer-behavior Aggregating Companies', and they are effectively uncontrolled. It is a new industry. Compare them to the three credit agencies are heavily regulated. See how it gets scary?

      John Oliver did an informative piece on these shady companies within the last year. Very informative.

    35. Re: Only if we let them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Companies can also lobby to change laws with their capital and influence, something that the average Joe couldn't compete with equally.
      2. It's not about not using services anymore honestly. Even if you don't have a social media account your family could be posting pictures and videos of you online for the algorithms to collect. Web browsers collect info on everything you search online pretty well. You'd be surprised what these companies have on you. You'd also be surprised at how good these companies have gotten with exploiting the human psyche to stay addicted to their endless barrage of trash news and trivial outrages.
      3. Readily available and cheap food owes much of its success to the chemical fertilizers and assembly line slaughterhouses perfected during WW2. Computers just help make it more efficient.
      Deterrence via nuclear arms arguably played the biggest role in preventing conventional wars, way before even Apple was a thing, so countries turned to supplying rag tag militias with guns to fight for them instead. We still do that to this day. It's just that those wars are more or less background noise. Space travel was pioneered during the Cold War with military aims backing the project to make sure the Soviets didn't pull anything with their own space programs. The corporations just got the leftover research. The government is the one that funds most of these space startups anyways(*coughSpaceXcough*).
      4. The recent scandals and controversies have shown the cracks in Silicon Valley's culture. Firing people based on their opinions, criticizing others for lack of diversity despite lacking it themselves, a general sense of cultural isolation from the rest of the country, a lack of self awareness, cultivating public shaming, etc.

      SV hasn't learned anything since the Californian Ideology days. They may have good intentions, they just don't seem to consider others' as well.

    36. Re: Only if we let them... by west · · Score: 1

      Right - I get having a *bad* social media presence can harm you. Companies can be expected to use whatever information they can find out about you. I also get that having a social media presence may get you offers that you might not have otherwise received.

      But my question is whether NOT having a profile will *actively* hurt you, and this article mentioned nothing about that.

      I strongly suspect that we're not quite at the point where you are expected to provide your FaceBook identity on your resume. I don't think not having a social media presence is considered a statement about you. HR may simply assume your lack of presence simply means they didn't find you.

      However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I don't know I'm right, but I'll assume I'm right until I see at least some evidence to the contrary.

    37. Re:Only if we let them... by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      This is really just a fad. Giving up all your privacy isn't going to be the norm forever. People will wise up. I mean all of us were on networks before it was cool and we learned that its dangerous to give out personal info. Eventually, the normies will learn that too.

      The same way they learned how to use GUI's, web browsers and even the mouse. Just takes them time because they aren't really technical so they dont get the technology and ramifications at first glance.

      People will grow to fear databases as I do. I have faith in humankind.

      --
      -
    38. Re:Only if we let them... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, Facebook may be currently convinced I'm a hummingbird. Employers where I live have a tendency towards discriminating against people without Facebook accounts, so...

      There's a place in the area which sells angel statues that are utterly perfect if you ever want to stick an angel statue outside a friend's window at night. I'm thinking of getting a picture of one and replacing my profile pic with that, possibly talking some friends into taking some pictures so we can tag 'em as me before we give the statue...

    39. Re:Only if we let them... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You have a presence in social media even if you've never created an account. You know those little 'f' icons you see on websites which link back to Facebook? They're not a link. They're a script which sets a cookie or examines your cookies to uniquely identify your computer. When you visit slashdot, that 'f' icon in the upper right tells Facebook that user #51853601342 has visited slashdot. And they add it to their database with all other sites user #51853601342.

      You're assuming that blocking those is difficult, they're not. Ublock origin refuses to accept those cookies right off the bat, you can even go further if you want to use something like ghostery.

      Then one day a friend of yours sends you a Facebook invite via email. You happen to click on it to delete it (instead of doing a select-delete) which causes it to load in your browser, and now Facebook knows that user #51853601342 is yourname@gmail.com. They start cross-referencing your name with comments, other friend requests, public documents, etc. And now Facebook knows who you are, where you live, who your family is, who your friends are, what you look like (thanks to photo face ID), where you work, who your co-workers are, and how much you make. All without you having an account.

      Which is actually illegal in the country I live in. Facebook was threatened with $10m/day fines a few years ago for doing it, and they don't. The privacy commissioners office has been rather diligent in that. Maybe you need to fix the privacy laws in the country you live?

      FYI incognito mode doesn't work as well as you think it does. If you're going that far, you might as well be browsing with TOR.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:Only if we let them... by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's illegal in the whole of the EU, I think the biggest combined economy in the world most definitely is big enough to make a difference. No US tech company is going to give up the opportunity to operate in the wealthiest single market in the world.

    41. Re: Only if we let them... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      Well, many millions of years ago, someone argued coming down from the trees will lead us to our doom...

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  2. I've said it here before by onyxruby · · Score: 3

    If you aren't paying for the product you are the product.

    1. Re:I've said it here before by TimothyHollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not true. Sometimes you pay for the product but you are still the product.

    2. Re: I've said it here before by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "If" != "If - and only if -".

      If you're a pig, you're a mammal. Correct.
      If - and only if - you're a pig, you're a mammal. Wrong, because cows.

      AC is right and you're wrong. STFU.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re: I've said it here before by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 1

      AC is not saying that you (onyxruby) made an error against logic, but that TimothyHollins did. And AC is correct about that.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
    4. Re:I've said it here before by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Sometimes you pay for the product but you are still the product.

      True enough. Epson is the prime example. Its CEO called inkjets "vending machines for ink."

      Asshole.

    5. Re:I've said it here before by dddux · · Score: 1

      So true. Often these days companies want to eat the cake and have it, too and the creepiest thing is that they easily manage to get away with it.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  3. Essay by the author in the Washington Post by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 4, Informative

    Franklin Foer wrote an article "How Silicon Valley is erasing your individuality", which seems to be an abridged version of the book.

    --
    /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
  4. point of no return by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Assuming the author is correct in his assertions, we're certainly now at/past the tipping point.

    What's to be done about it? Nothing, really... it's better than television as a narcotic to keep the masses sedated, it allows the mega-corporations to target market like never before, and the governments are happy with their automated, mostly voluntary, data collection behemoth.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. everything leads us to our doom by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Proximo: In the end, we're all dead men.

    1. Re:everything leads us to our doom by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      Shadows and dust...and products.

  6. Ignorant little snotball by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

    I'm sure somewhere among them there's a group dedicated to learning Latin. Why not join it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ignorant little snotball by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you belong in a museam.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Ignorant little snotball by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So does that joke.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Solution in the summary. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Once hooked, consumers are robbed of choice, milked for profit, deprived of privacy and made the subjects of stealth social engineering experiments."

    Now that you know it's addictive, you can simply not use what they are offering. Of course if you are already hooked then you should leave them behind. If that means quitting social media completely, you quit that shit. If that means not using Android or iOS then get a smartphone that lets you choose a libre mobile OS or *gasp* don't use a smartphone. Hell, if that means going off the power grid you go invest in some solar panels and batteries, dammit! ;)

    If you don't like your situation, you change it, you don't sit around and cry about it.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Solution in the summary. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Now that you know it's addictive, you can simply not use what they are offering. Of course if you are already hooked then you should leave them behind. If that means quitting social media completely, you quit that shit. If that means not using Android or iOS then get a smartphone that lets you choose a libre mobile OS or *gasp* don't use a smartphone.

      Or don't have friends, then you won't have this problem at all. Seriously though, maybe /.'ers are so socially inept they haven't registered but social media has fundamentally altered the expected social interaction. People don't send mails, texts, write on their blog or call/meet to say it in person, they make a Facebook post and expect the people who are interested enough to care to read it. I refuse to use Facebook, though I got badgered into having an account to answer invitations and I've noticed I'm almost totally oblivious to what's happening in my social circle.

      And I mean even important life events I'd like to know, but nobody told me not out of malice but simply because they don't think about it. Occasionally I might get a "oh right you don't read Facebook, I mean even my 100 year old great-grandmother reads Facebook, but hey... a bunch of us are going to do [something], you interested?" or "oh, I forget you're out of touch with civilization we're expecting a new baby next month". And it's not better the other way around, people don't really ask anymore and pushing it on anything other than close friends is also unfashionable. Basically, they'd like me to post it on Facebook.

      It's not a battle I'm going to win. In fact, I'm pretty sure that for the most part I'm the one getting screwed by it and Zuckerberg certainly isn't missing my $0.02 worth of ad revenue. It's tempting to just say fuck it, I give up... you want us to socialize via Facebook, let's socialize via Facebook. That they have a profile on you that would give STASI orgasms is the price of a social life in 2017. I'm still a hold-out, but it's a very lonely hold-out. The latest stats here in Norway is that 67% of the population is using social media daily. Maybe I should just jump off the bridge with them and hope the pile is big enough to catch my fall...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Solution in the summary. by west · · Score: 1

      Convenience always wins.

      FB, et al has made it more convenient to socialize, and if I'm the hold out (and I am), it's because I'm deliberately choosing to make it less convenient for all my friends to socialize with me.

      I'd complain, but it comes across to me as being the only one who hasn't moved downtown from the suburbs, and then me whining that no-one drops in.

      As with everything, it's weighing the costs vs. the benefits. The costs are the same for everyone who joins, but the benefit for those who, like me, are rather less social, are far smaller than for my less social peers.

      What is changing is that as FB absorbs more of my social circle and there are fewer non-FB-mediated social contacts, the benefit of joining increases. The benefit of 1 social contact a week to 50 social contacts a week was not worth the cost. The benefit of 1 social contact every 8 weeks to 50 social contacts a week may well be worth the cost.

      (Also, not being on FB is beginning to be like not having an email address. It paints you as old and cranky, which I am but would prefer not to be painted that way.)

    3. Re:Solution in the summary. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      maybe /.'ers are so socially inept they haven't registered but social media has fundamentally altered the expected social interaction. People don't send mails, texts, write on their blog or call/meet to say it in person, they make a Facebook post and expect the people who are interested enough to care to read it.

      Interesting. That's not how my social circle works. Anyway, if you absolutely must have an online social circle then you should use something that isn't facebook. There are plenty of decentralized platforms as well as platforms you can host yourself that can manage more people than you'll ever meet. Slap it on a secure VPS and have your friends use it.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Solution in the summary. by kencurry · · Score: 1

      U don't have to give up if you don't want to: just need to find those 1 or 2 people in your city that think like you. meet up once in a while. call & listen to their voice. make random plans off of random comments or observations. What life is supposed to be, not fodder for social media.

      WSJ just ran article from noted phycologist that kids are better off having one or two friends they care about than fostering attention from a whole group.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  8. Re:Endgame by Archtech · · Score: 1

    All rook endgames are drawn.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  9. DNF by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Who will lead us to Duke Nukem Forever?

    Just spotted it, DNF also stands for Did Not Finish.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re: Big Tech? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Whenever some refers to a subject as Big XXXX (Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.) you should be very skeptical of everything they say.

    In the cases of Big Oil and Big Pharma, they clearly and unabashedly operate as cartels in their respective domains. It's much less clear that there is anything like that operating in technology. The bar to entry for new software is very, very low.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:Wrong by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    The last time I trusted these guys, I had to pick between being able to shoot in the dark or use a flashlight to see what was going to kill me.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  12. Re:Wrong by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    The last time I trusted these guys, I had to pick between being able to shoot in the dark or use a flashlight to see what was going to kill me.

    Look. Just because space marines are too stupid to use duct tape to attach the flashlight to their guns, doesn't mean they're all stupid. Just most of them, which explains the entire hellspawn-take-over-mars and earth thing.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  13. I don't use social media by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

    But I gotta say, he's not wrong.

  14. how dumb by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    to make the world less private, less individual, less creative, less human... Big Tech has imposed its will on the resident population with neither our input nor our permission.

    Their program isn't to make the world less private per se; it's to make money. The means by which they make money happens to be making the world less private. He fails to deal with the fact that this forfeit of privacy is voluntary and that those who forfeit some amount of privacy also get something in return. It's a transaction. I give up some privacy, but I get a platform to connect with old friends, dialogue about current events and share pictures. I give up some privacy but I get a pretty decent web-based email client without having to pay any money for it. I get a nice search engine. I get free cloud-based storage. A decent web browser. Etc.

    How does any of this make me "less individual" or "less human"? In what way has this been done without my permission? I know these platforms allow Google, Facebook, et. al to collect information about me.

    1. Re:how dumb by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      1. Someone you know takes your photo and uploads it to Facebook without your permission.

      First, you don't need Facebook for that. 30 years ago someone could have taken my picture, printed up a bunch of flyers, and plastered it all over Manhattan. More recently, you still don't need Facebook; all you need is the world wide web and, possibly, search engines. Would you do away with those?

      Another question I'd ask is: how is this even an invasion of my privacy? If someone takes a picture of me in public then I have no expectation of privacy. If they take a picture of me in private, potentially one that I'd prefer not be shared, then I'd say the fault lies with the individual who shared it and not the medium used to share.

      2. Someone you don't know catches your voice in a video of a crowded event and posts it to youtube.

      Public = no expectation of privacy.

      3. Someone you know posts where you are to twitter to tell someone else about a gathering.

      Same as above. Do my privacy rights include the right to not have an individual publicly reveal my current location? All of your criticisms boil down to the fact that the internet/web are efficient ways to broadcast information.

      4. Someone you don't know does a wireless survey and detects your phone hotspot / home wifi nearby, then posts that to a list of wifi aps online.

      Fine by me.

      5. Windows 10 (before the patch to disable it by default) shared all of the wifi passwords you put into it to Microsoft. (Supposedly for the purposes of informing friends automatically, damn whether you wanted them to be able to connect or not.)

      Did they divulge this feature in an EULA? If so, then I'm fine with it. I would choose not to use Windows so long as it had that feature. If it was not divulged then I'd say Windows 10 users have a right to be pissed.

      Just because you are apparently fine with that, doesn't mean others are. Those people would very much like to find a way to prohibit / prevent that info from being used, but it's an uphill battle due to the apathy of others.

      If you're not okay with images of you being shared online, then don't go out in public where someone could take your picture. In fact, don't interact with anyone in private either because that person could take your photo and show it to (potentially many) others. We have laws intended to protect us from others sharing indecent photos, but not run-of-the-mill photos. That strikes me as entirely appropriate.

    2. Re:how dumb by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Another question I'd ask is: how is this even an invasion of my privacy? If someone takes a picture of me in public then I have no expectation of privacy. If they take a picture of me in private, potentially one that I'd prefer not be shared, then I'd say the fault lies with the individual who shared it and not the medium used to share

      These no expectation of privacy arguments are mostly nonsense. Just because something happens in public does not grant everyone carte blanch to do whatever the f**** they please with that information.

      Try following someone around in public all day and see what happens.

      Try taking a picture of some random bikini chick on the beach, post it creeper magazine and see what happens.

      Just because you see or overhear something in public does not grant you some magical right to do with it as you please without repercussions.

    3. Re: how dumb by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Just because you see or overhear something in public does not grant you some magical right to do with it as you please without repercussions.

      The law generally grants one the legal right to do with it what one pleases. So no legal repercussions. I agree it's not magical; it just stems from statutes and legal precedent. May vary by state if you live in the U.S.

  15. Re: Big Tech? by tomhath · · Score: 1
    The premise of this book seems to be that "Big Tech" does have a common goal:

    These firms have a program: to make the world less private, less individual, less creative, less human... Big Tech has imposed its will on the resident population

    And if you think you can start a new search engine, social media site, or shopping site to compete with Google, Facebook, or Amazon - good luck.

  16. Re: Big Tech? by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But with a few companies having a quite complete picture about everything you are up online, it will be more and more difficult to develop something revolutionary (pardon: disruptive) without them noticing. And with their superior manpower they might be able to beat any small group of developers to market.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  17. Believe in science by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ is resurrected from the deads. My hope. Our hope.

    As far as that goes, I'll go with hoping Richard Feynman is resurrected. At least people actually paid attention to his messages rather than just posturing and pretending.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. Re: believe in God. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Do you REALLY know Jesus or did he just touch you on the shoulder once?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  19. Read the New Yorker article on TNR's demise by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The article on The New Republic's collapse after its buyout by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes describes how Foer's being ousted as editor was what prompted this book. The problem was a bicoastal clash of cultures: the writers at the magazine, proud curators of a hundred-year tradition of in-depth coverage of topics, suddenly faced a pack of young interlopers spouting Silicon Valley marketing buzzwords. It wasn't long before an article critical of hedge fund bro culture was spiked in the face of a financing deal with exactly these people, causing so many of the writers to jump ship that TNR had to skip publishing the issue.

  20. Or they'll just buy you by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we've been letting a lot of money accumulate at the top. So much that it's easier for companies to buy out potential rivals before they get too big. Microsoft was famous for this and I've been seeing EA & Activision doing it for decades too.

    I'm less worried about losing privacy than I am about the affects of wealth inequality and having that much money/power at the top. Most people don't abuse privacy for fun, they do it to take all the world's money for themselves. Solve income inequality and the privacy problems will take care of themselves.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Ad-driven revenue model... by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

    ...was the original problem here. Since 99% of all internet services are delivered "for free", primarily as a result of the internet's decentralized nature, the service providers had to find a way to make money. It went from banner ads to now mining all of your personal data for profit.

    Why doesn't e.g. Netflix get mentioned with the GAFA quadruplet? Because you pay 9.99/month for Netflix, so Netflix doesn't care who your friends are and how to sell that to advertising companies. The problem is that even if people would now be willing to pay 9.99/month for Facebook, Facebook wouldn't want it that way - they've seen they can make much more massive profits by mining people's personal data. There's no going back now.

  22. Re: believe in God. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    I'm chasing him right now. Didn't mow the lawn last week. No rain excuse.

    My own personal Jesus, someone to mow, edge and rake...

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Not bad, interesting in parts by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Not a bad book, interesting in sections with some recondite information, but the author makes a glaring fooking mistake referring to the great economist (economic surplus, etc.), Thorstein Veblen, as a sociologist!

  24. Re: Big Tech? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    But with a few companies having a quite complete picture about everything you are up online, it will be more and more difficult to develop something revolutionary (pardon: disruptive) without them noticing. And with their superior manpower they might be able to beat any small group of developers to market. [bold mine]

    This is why I have convinced countless colleagues to STOP using DropBox for Group-sharing on projects. DropBox indexes every file and its contents. Why should they get to spy on my R&D? Imagine that you're a researcher or small-business owner, with 'Trade Secret' or Patentable stuff that you want to keep private... Your patent-able ideas could be easily stolen. Or if you have a small-business grant (SBIR/STTR), it is quite likely that the funding agency has required some kind of information control. For example your final report might not be approved for public distribution. Or parts of the work itself.

    If info is for your team members only (secret or private), then DO NOT use Dropbox. Dropbox has publicly confirmed that they index every file that crosses their servers. That is, Dropbox is one huge opportunity for industrial espionage. If even one individual at Dropbox decided to go sifting through their full "customer base's" documents using keywords like "patent", "disclosure", or "SECRET" – well, then they could beat a lot of people to the Patent Office (with stolen ideas). Or get you in trouble with your funding agency.

    If you are using Dropbox to store any project or government-sensitive files, please STOP IMMEDIATELY. Their CEO is Condoleeza Rice – an architect of the privacy-invasive shift of the US Govt during the Bush years. She hates privacy.

    SOLUTION?: Box Sync You have to pay above the 5 GB level, or so, but it's worth it. They encrypt files client-side and decrypt the files on the recipient's end. Box Sync does not have the capability to examine your files – by design. They keep your file structure visible to anyone with your Group's password, of course, and provide granular control over who can up/download at the file or folder level.

    There are many other companies with solutions of varying security. I only harped on Box Sync because I know all about it. Also, the entire University of California system has forbidden faculty and staff from using DropBox (for the reasons above), and at the time of the switch, Box Sync was the only analog on the market that had security. This was a year or so ago – every UC faculty & staff got an unlimited, or at least gigantic, Box Sync account.

    The more you know...

  25. Sterile Society by freudigst · · Score: 1

    Yet another of the many social issues presented on Slashdot that is big news to Americans, yet common sense to the rest of the (non-English-speaking) planet who simply miss out on "the digital life" sterile Americana has to offer nowadays.

  26. The world is ending v. 2000000.0 by dabrowsa · · Score: 1

    Somehow I think we'll survive. Some societies thought (and think) you can't live without honor, hence the execution of rape victims and rituals of suicide. Now we think we can't live without privacy. I'll bet we can.

    --
    `Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'
  27. Are universe is doomed.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooomed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Are universe is doomed.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and of course I used the wrong 'Are'. sigh,

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Re: Big Tech? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

    --I wish I had modpoints today. Mod parent up please!

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??