Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Will Use Facial Recognition To Tell You When People Upload Your Picture (recode.net)

If someone uploads a photo of your face to Facebook, the company usually knows that it's you thanks to facial recognition technology. Now Facebook won't just know it's you -- it'll tell you about the photo, too. From a report: Facebook is expanding its use of facial recognition technology and will now alert people that a friend, or a friend of a friend, uploaded a photo of them, even if they haven't been tagged in the picture. If anyone uploads a profile picture that includes your face, Facebook will alert you of that, too. "We're doing this to prevent people from impersonating others on Facebook," the company wrote on its blog Tuesday.

80 comments

  1. Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is kind of like a pedophile saying he'll only feel up boys that have been abused already anyway.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Pedophile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook already asked for all our nudes. They just want faces now for their "tributes".

    2. Re:Pedophile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you keep complaining like a bitching faggot. You don't like it - don't use it.

      Quit the stupid thing and stop bitching.

    3. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Did I say I used it? What word in my post led you to believe that? Was it 'boys' ?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Pedophile by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Facebook notifying you that someone posted a picture of you - probably taken in a public area - is akin to a pedophile molesting abused boys?

      Your moral compass is seriously out of whack.

    5. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The pedophile part is Facebook feeling like they are entitled to help themselves to tracking pictures of our faces, even if we don't choose to participate. Agreed, it is an exaggeration but still, this practice is very, very, creepy. Maybe it's more like having someone on your block that peers through the blinds with binoculars and logs all the neighbor's comings and goings in a black notebook times A BILLION, but still I think most people got the idea. The 'molested before' part is the fact that Facebook doesn't care whether you want your face there or not, they have already proceeded to track your face, figure out who you are (whether you have a Facebook account or not) and log your comings and goings and everything they can discern about you before they have the 'kindness' to tell you about it. This with the added bonus that there is no way to know about it at all if you aren't participating. Actually not that I write it all out I'm feeling like I didn't exaggerate all that much and you just aren't fully appreciating how creepy the whole practice is.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    6. Re:Pedophile by gnick · · Score: 1

      Did I say I used it?

      You did not say you used FB. You did imply some FB hate by comparing it to a criminal pedophile. Perhaps AC should have said, "You don't like it - ignore it."

      Invading privacy is what FB bases their business on and criticizing them for it is just fine. But criticizing them for content is dumb. The content is what you make it. If your friends are posting fluff, change or mute friends. If your friends can't manage a discussion where there's a difference of opinion without using words like "libtard", "snowflake", or "Trumpette", change friends. Seeing fake news? Follow real news sources. I see headlines from CNN, CNN International, and BBC News, none of which make a habit of posting misinformation. My friends are people who post content more interesting than their dinners and who are capable of intelligent discussion.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So don't talk about the elephant in the room. Got it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Pedophile by gnick · · Score: 1

      I think I missed a step. What's the elephant I told you to avoid? The privacy issue? It's real; discuss at length. I just said not to bitch about the content. The content is exactly what you make of it. Bitching about FB's content is like bitching about your car because it keeps taking you to bad restaurants.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re: Pedophile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You choose to participate by using the site. Don't want to participate? Don't use it.

      I don't use it, therefore it is of no concern to me.

      God damn, so many idiots.

    10. Re: Pedophile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use it.

      Good luck with that. Smash your dumbphone lately? Hiding out in your mom's basement with no Internet access?

      Because protip, chucklefuck, you're being bought and sold whether you log in or not.

    11. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I didn't bitch about the content. Where the hell did you get that? I bitched about the tracking.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re:Pedophile by gnick · · Score: 1

      You said "don't talk about the elephant in the room". I asked what the elephant was that I said to avoid. Did you miss my first line?

      Invading privacy is what FB bases their business on and criticizing them for it is just fine.

      You didn't bitch about the tracking, you bitched about "the elephant." Since I specifically said that the privacy issue should be discussed, I'm trying to figure out what we're avoiding.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Ok then I guess you didn't mean to imply not using it was any kind of solution.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Pedophile by gnick · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply anything about a solution. What did I write that led you to infer that? I was just trying to figure out what subject I made taboo that inspired you to say, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room". What elephant are we avoiding? The privacy issue is front and center.

      But, now that you bring it up, not using FB is not a solution to being tracked. You may have never signed up for an account, that doesn't mean that there isn't a big, fat database entry on you with everything they can collect. Hiding from FB isn't as simple as not signing up.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:Pedophile by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I think you're confused.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    16. Re:Pedophile by gnick · · Score: 1

      You're right. I am confused. I think we both are. Including this post, I've asked 4 times what the "elephant" is that you said I declared off-limits. You haven't even given me a hint. I'm not even interested any more; I just want resolution. You could have cleared this up with one simple post. I'm starting to think you posted nonsense and then got distracted. I'll help:

      When I said, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room. Got it.", I was referring to the topic of [TOPIC]. I inferred that you didn't want to talk about it because you said, "[QUOTE]". Sorry for the confusion.

      Or are you suggesting I'm confused because I said FB will track you even if you haven't signed up? They will if they can and they're good at it. Not signing up for FB does not mean they'll ignore you.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. What could possibly go wrong ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Numerous companies all racing to compile their own nearly complete biometric libraries of the entire human race ???
    Sure... why not ?? Not that that sort of thing could be hacked or abused by criminal, corporations or government agencies, right ?

  3. Facebook is doing something ... WITH FACES ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Sure this is a sign of the end times. Up to this point their entire reason for existing was to get people to waste their time playing stupid games while their information was harvested for advertising. If facebook actually does something with actual faces this can only lead to terrible, terrible things.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Facebook is doing something ... WITH FACES ? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is a bit too late.... Oh wait I got it... Ha Ha...
      Facebook has been using face recognition for a while now. Hopefully this way I will be able to block my friends from seeing posts that different friends posted about me.

      Hey look it is me playing Miniature Golf with some friends. Now my other friends who I had turned down an invitation to go bowling that same day knows what I did.
      Now I need to explain myself vs. just going on as normal the next day.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Facebook is doing something ... WITH FACES ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faeces. Faecial recognition. FB has always been a shit show invading your anal privacy, but now it's up your ass legitimately, recognizing your colon. Zuckerberg is german for anal intruder.

  4. Effective as? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I expect it to be as effective as Apple's face lock software. Expect false positives.

    1. Re:Effective as? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Those can be useful too.

      FB: Someone uploaded this picture of you.
      You: That's not me.

      FB: Someone uploaded this picture of you.
      You: [ silence ].
      FB: Thank youuuu.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Re:Can they please make us ban bump stocks, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but if anyone uploads a picture of a bump stock or the back end of other livestock they'll be sure to notify you.

  6. APK needs to prove he is even more retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently APK needs to prove he is even more retarded than we all know him to be.

    I'm surprised that he didn't go into one of his antisemitic rants as this article mentions facebook.

    I do see that APK is back to his standard lies about his hosts file engine bullshit.

    Too bad his strategy is as effective as an AV that detects viruses based solely based on file name and only long after they have been detected by others.

    1. Re:APK needs to prove he is even more retarded by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Here is the kicker... APK hasn't changed at all personality wise in at least 18 years. Like he is the same nutcase he has always been.
      https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1047791
      https://i.imgur.com/2I0dlF4.png

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  7. This could be useful if done right by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    If they give you the option to block the photo, it could be very useful. You get notifications if someone tags you in a photo, but what if someone uploaded a less than flattering photo of you and doesn't tag it. An ex-boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse or something like that which you might not see. If people have to approve photos of them before the photo got posted to a timeline, it might also help slow down the mass of info being posted.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:This could be useful if done right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually you just fell into their trap: you confirming that the photo is you (or isn't you) is what they want. They don't care about you, but they want to improve their tracking. Congratulations.

    2. Re:This could be useful if done right by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      You're already in control of who sees photos you're tagged in. You can chose to review them before release, as well. The photo will still be on Facebook, but your friends/girlfriend/whoever won't see that you're tagged in it, and unless they're friends with the poster, they won't see it at all.

    3. Re:This could be useful if done right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they give you the option to block the photo, it could be very useful. You get notifications if someone tags you in a photo, but what if someone uploaded a less than flattering photo of you and doesn't tag it. An ex-boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse or something like that which you might not see. If people have to approve photos of them before the photo got posted to a timeline, it might also help slow down the mass of info being posted.

      There is a huge hole in this idea: You have to be known to FB and reachable by FB in order to be notified.

      This would only be worthwhile if FB blocked photos from being displayed unless they got an opt-in from every single identifiable person in the photo. Effectively, FB would be limited to photos of people who a) want to have anything to do with FB and b) approve the photo. Now excuse me while I go start holding my breath.

    4. Re:This could be useful if done right by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      You're already in control of who sees photos you're tagged in. You can chose to review them before release, as well. The photo will still be on Facebook, but your friends/girlfriend/whoever won't see that you're tagged in it, and unless they're friends with the poster, they won't see it at all.

      My point is that if someone posts your photo without your permission, it won't be seen at all by anyone, not just the poster's friends.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:This could be useful if done right by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      You're already in control of who sees photos you're tagged in. You can chose to review them before release, as well. The photo will still be on Facebook, but your friends/girlfriend/whoever won't see that you're tagged in it, and unless they're friends with the poster, they won't see it at all.

      My point is that if someone posts your photo without your permission, it won't be seen at all by anyone, not just the poster's friends.

      If you do not know the person and you photo bombed their photo with their friends, that is your problem not theirs. I doubt you will be able to block the photo from being posted if you just happen to be in a photo with other people.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  8. Oh no you're not... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're doing this to prevent people from impersonating others on Facebook,

    That's a lie Facebook. You're doing it so that you can track people better. See if they have multiple accounts. Track who really knows who and who has been where. Etc.

    You're facemapping people so you can collect more data to sell. Don't tell porkies and claim it's to prevent impersonation. It's not. It's really not and we're not all stupid. You may "tack on" that functionality to make it sound more palatable, but you're really just being a big creepy stalker.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Oh no you're not... by GregMmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just one more reason not to be on Facebook...

    2. Re:Oh no you're not... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Just one more reason not to be on Facebook..."

      Actually you got that wrong.
      If you're not on FB, you'll never get a notice that people who _are_ on FB are posting pictures of you.

      It's a ploy to get all the paranoid people onto FB or at least 1 picture of them.

    3. Re:Oh no you're not... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      "Just one more reason not to be on Facebook..."

      Actually you got that wrong.
      If you're not on FB, you'll never get a notice that people who _are_ on FB are posting pictures of you.

      It's a ploy to get all the paranoid people onto FB or at least 1 picture of them.

      If someone wants to pretend to be a slightly overweight guy with yellowing teeth from excess coffee consumption, they're welcome to use my photos! (which they won't find because I'm not on facebook.)

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Oh no you're not... by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Informative

      >my photos! (which they won't find because I'm not on facebook)

      You probably are. Someone else uploads a picture with you in it, your face gets tagged, then it gets linked to the shadow profile of you they already have. Maybe it's an out of date photo - an old school class photo or something.

      It's extremely evil from a privacy perspective and there is no will in the USA to do anything about it.

    5. Re:Oh no you're not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      which they won't find because I'm not on facebook

      Facebook keeps a shadow profile on you, whether you have signed up or not.

      They have also made a very good guess about your biometric identity. Other people upload pictures of you. Ever gone out to eat? Then a photo of you exists in Facebook, because diners commonly take phone photos and upload them. You're in multiple of those. Ever gone to a social event? Then Facebook has your picture. They have associated it with their shadow profile through analysis of social graphs.

      You are in FB whether you want to be or not.

    6. Re:Oh no you're not... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Anyone who uses facebook is asking to be abused.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:Oh no you're not... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      >my photos! (which they won't find because I'm not on facebook)

      You probably are. Someone else uploads a picture with you in it, your face gets tagged, then it gets linked to the shadow profile of you they already have. Maybe it's an out of date photo - an old school class photo or something.

      It's extremely evil from a privacy perspective and there is no will in the USA to do anything about it.

      Probably... but no user would be able to find enough photos of me to reliably pass themselves off as me. I'm sure a couple of photos of me may have found their way online (I avoid when possible) but not enough to create a fake persona.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Oh no you're not... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      To tell advertizers social media has real people and only real people on its lists.
      That tech is in place to find out if a person is real and is ready for a sales pitch.
      A quality herd of consumers to be sorted and sold to.
      The account with a face is the product been traded and sold, not user privacy been protected.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Oh no you're not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's extremely evil from a privacy perspective and there is no will in the USA to do anything about it.

      FB is simply the most gigantic, malignant tumor ever known to the human phenomena.

  9. Doppelgangers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until I get notified by my doppelganger, who is a porn star. It's caused quite a bit of embarrassment when co-workers ask if that's me in the skin mags.

    1. Re:Doppelgangers? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't wait until I get notified by my doppelganger, who is a porn star. It's caused quite a bit of embarrassment when co-workers ask if that's me in the skin mags.

      Marty Feldman is not a porn star.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Doppelgangers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fucking funny.

  10. Uncanny Valley by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Facebook's facial recognition is still not perfect. Every time I post a picture of my shih tzu's ass, it tags it as "Donald Trump".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Uncanny Valley by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Facebook's facial recognition is still not perfect. Every time I post a picture of my shih tzu's ass, it tags it as "Donald Trump".

      Are you 100% sure your dog's arse isn't Donald Trump?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Uncanny Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because facebook is for fagget slowflakes like yourself, and we all know what faggets want.

    3. Re:Uncanny Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Facebook's facial recognition is still not perfect. Every time I post a picture of my shih tzu's ass, it tags it as "Donald Trump"."

      I also recognized him at a zoo. It was a Shih Tsu.

    4. Re:Uncanny Valley by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      and we all know what faggets want.

      I'll bet you do.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Uncanny Valley by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Are you 100% sure your dog's arse isn't Donald Trump?

      You just hurt Fluffy's feelings. I hope you're happy now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Uncanny Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shat out a pythonic turd this morning. It was an enormous coil of Trump sluicing and splurting as it exited my ass. It hurt to evacuate this thing from my bowels.

    7. Re:Uncanny Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're on to something here. Everyone with a Facebook account should post pictures of their dogs' asses and tag them as Donald Trump.

    8. Re:Uncanny Valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor snowflake, did somebody skewer your widdle sacred cow?

  11. Useful service for some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now there's no good way to know if a pic of you has been uploaded. This will let people know when their friends have uploaded them in pics. THat is more information for people to have to manage their online identities.

    Having a hard time seeing why that's bad. If Facebook doesn't provide this service that doesn't stop ppl from uploading you, you just don't know that it hapened anymore.

  12. Facebook, die, die, die by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Seriously: when are you all going to say 'enough is enough' and stop using Facebook?

    1. Re:Facebook, die, die, die by phfpht · · Score: 1

      11 years ago?
      Yeah. That's about when.

      This tech is really cool, but scary as hell in the wrong hands*

      *Wrong hands is here defined as anybody with or without hands.

    2. Re:Facebook, die, die, die by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      For me, it's been a little over three years ago. Have not missed it at all.

    3. Re:Facebook, die, die, die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously: when are you all going to say 'enough is enough' and stop using Facebook?

      As long as there are people who think that FB is useful on any level, we are all stuck with it. FB is everyone's problem and no individual can "stop" it.

    4. Re:Facebook, die, die, die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this FacePlant you speak of?

    5. Re:Facebook, die, die, die by ThePawArmy · · Score: 1

      "We?" You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

  13. Doesn't slashdot have the technology to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    block that idiot who keeps posting abusive rants about the Vatican in every thread? That is hardly rocket science.

  14. am i going to have to actually sign up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    facebook already knows everything about everybody. *even people who don't have accounts* are tracked and have their data compiled and analyzed by them. facebook uses numerous third-party data sources to fill-out their own data. this data includes facial recognition and scanning of photos, tags (on facebook or elsewhere), public records, etc, etc, etc...... they know what brand of tissue you blew your load (or nose) into this morning.. they know *it all*.

    so, will they start sending postcards or emails every time your picture gets uploaded? even if you don't use facebook? will they block the use of your pictures (or rather, your likeness in any picture) because you don't want to be on there in the first place? cuz, you know, they have that capability....

    1. Re:am i going to have to actually sign up? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Whether they send you a message through their system or via a postcard, they have to know the identity of the person with that particular face.

      You could set up a fake identity and tag a few pictures of yourself with that ID. Facebook would then proceed to notify your fake persona whenever another photo of yourself was uploaded. As long as you have a method of checking your account from time to time without tripping over any tracking that could reveal your true identity, this could work.

      Another trick you can use is to create a fake identity with either a common name, or better yet one you 'happen' to share with some celebrity. Any query on your identity would be swamped by returns of the more popular person. I know a guy who does this and it works quite well. Pick a name like Taylor Swift (this isn't the one he uses) and just try to find a picture of him online. How far down the responses will you have to scroll to find that 60 year old, out of work coal miner from Appalachia named Mr Swift?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  15. FBI has posted your picture... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    The FBI has posted your picture on the most wanted list
      has posted your picture in persons of interest. ...

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  16. Must be a boon to law enforcement by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    How long (or maybe it's happening already) before law enforcement dragoons Facebook into watching for people of interest and letting them know that a picture of any of those folks has just shown up, who posted it, metadata, etc.? This sounds way easier for the cops than setting up their own surveillance and face recognition systems.

    1. Re:Must be a boon to law enforcement by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      > This sounds way easier for the cops than setting up their own surveillance and face recognition systems

      Easier but not necessarily more effective. By building a federal law enforcement system they can do things like require municipal CCTV systems to do local scanning and forwarding of results as well. And airports, bus stations, customs, maybe major malls or amusement parks, maybe cameras at critical choke points on interstate highways, etc.. Then the feds let local law enforcement query against that system while keeping the data under their control.

      After that, they get a law passed (probably a secret order with a gag order bonus) to force entities like Facebook to provide a feed as well, the icing on the Big Brother cake.

      At least, that's how I'd do it.

  17. So you're confirming the picture is of you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mass Surveillance Win.

  18. Facebook is pure evil by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

    Facebook is evil and everyone with a brain knows it.

    Facebook was so invested in because its potential to break down society was realized by its big investors. It wasn't a shot in the dark with their billions of dollars. It wasn't a surprise that social media would transform our society. They knew what it was to become and it profits them immensely.
    Why do they want to break down society? Because they want to increase the level of control they have. Instead of programming society on the scale of groups, they want to control every atom; every individual, and open up new roads to exponentially more power.

    People always explain away things like this saying "well that's just what people want and the company is just giving them what they want and making money, so this isn't really bad, this is progress! There's no conspiracy! People are smart, they aren't so easily suckered into things! They know what's good!"

    The thing is that people are actually not that picky. They will accept just about ANY given solution for their basic needs as long as authority backs it consistently enough. So it becomes a question of what exactly we are progressing towards and who's interest it really is in.

    Humans are not some transcendent creature with the guarantee of self awareness and intellect and rationality because of how much inherently better they are than all other life on Earth. These are optional features supported by a certain way of life. If you take away the nuances from the human way of life, if you take away the culture that support these higher functions, people go into "backward compatibility mode"; they re-adapt to a simpler, savage, prehistoric world. Simply put they devolve.

    While most people don't know themselves well enough to see this, there are people who know this about humanity, and they know about it deeply. These people are leaders.
    Leaders either choose to try to raise people up to their own level of awareness or leaders choose to plunge people down so they can never rise up. Leaders choose either cooperation or enslavement.

    Humans are tribal creatures. They are beyond racist. They are beyond nepotistic. They will kill members of their own families who displease them. Humans are not only genocidal by default, they a fratricidal by default.
    We can see this at every point in our history. We can see this in our close relatives like the chimpanzee that continue to live a way of life that we departed from eons ago.

    Leaders cooperate and enslave in degrees. The closer you are to directly supporting the substance of the leader, that is, the more you share in common with the leader that you align with that leader's will, the more cooperation you will receive. The further, the more enslavement you will receive, up to the point that when your interests drift sufficiently you are immediately killed or otherwise neutralized.
    What this amounts to is simple: as time goes on you will only become more distant and unable to adapt to the leader. The leader's own will replace everyone else. Eventually you drift into the zone of no return in relation to a current leader and unless the leader changes, your line will end: you, your family, your children all die and there are no more children thereafter.
    Usually this takes a long time, so long that the diverse interests in the world shift and leaders change and most tribes survive at least long enough to make a compromise and intermingle with the dominant tribe. But things are becoming unusual: power is being consolidated on unprecedented scales with unprecedented stability, and it is making ever more exacting demands on its subjects as their numbers swell to challenge the Earth's ability to sustain them.
    Humanity's genocidal nature has risen to the surface.

    This all sounds very grim, until you consider the fact we've been up and down this situation for millions of years and have some pretty good solutions to the pitfalls and the problems that lead to them.
    All the machinery is in place for us to CHOOSE our own leaders. A

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    1. Re:Facebook is pure evil by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Has anyone read this guy's dissertation? And if you did, care to post a summary?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Facebook is pure evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zuck, did you binge the last of your Adderall?

    3. Re:Facebook is pure evil by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      People are being brainwashed into stupid animals because the establishment is desperate to maintain itself but this time they control too much and we are all going to die if some one doesn't stop them before they collapse themselves

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    4. Re: Facebook is pure evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also it's somehow the jews that are behind everything. I find it hilarious that these conspiracy theories devolve into that sooner or later

  19. Kinda creepy, but could answer that shower thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever wondered how many of random people's photos you were in the background of? Facebook is looking for the answer!

  20. Unless you're Asian or Black by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Admittedly, most facial recognition software has a very high failure rate for non-Caucasian subjects.

    Don't believe me? Try seeing if your iPhone X can figure out the difference, or Facebook software. Dress two people with similar facial looks up with the same hairstyle and clothes and: Voila!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  21. Don't want, don't need. by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Oh, honey that's great, more people are spying on us! : P

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  22. That's nice for stalkers by drolli · · Score: 1

    so he can set up a facebook profile with the girl/woman he wants to stalk as a profile photo and then he get's notified when she appears in another photo?

    What could possibly go wrong? I mean it's 100% clear that all persons want to identify with their real name...

  23. just do this one simple trick by plopez · · Score: 1

    Never post your face. Post a picture of a comic book, oops i meant to say "graphic novel", hero, an animal, a tree or some other item.

    Avoid group photos which may end up on FB.

    Have someone tag an incorrect image of you a few times, such as a pet, baby, incorrect ethnicity, etc. In other words misinformation.

    GIGO. An algorithm fed incorrect data will not give correct results.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+