Slashdot Mirror


'What's Facebook?', Elon Musk Asks, As He Deletes SpaceX and Tesla Facebook Pages

It is unlikely that Facebook will see a significant drop in its mammoth userbase following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But on Friday, the #DeleteFacebook campaign, which is seeing an increasingly growing number of people call it quits on the world's largest social network, found its biggest backer: Elon Musk. Responding to WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton's "#DeleteFacebook" tweet, Musk asked "What's Facebook?" That was the beginning of a tweetstorm, which saw journalists asking Musk why his companies -- SpaceX and Tesla -- maintained their Facebook pages. Shouldn't Musk, they asked, delete them? Musk agreed. As of this writing, the official Facebook pages of SpaceX and Tesla, both of which had more than two million followers, are nowhere to be found. The Facebook page of SolarCity is gone too, if you were wondering.

The move comes months after Musk said Zuckerberg's understanding of AI was limited.

237 comments

  1. Just a Start. by Zorro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now delete Twitter too.

    1. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And also delete Instagram accounts, platform wich same owner than Facebook

    2. Re:Just a Start. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      #DeleteTwitter and #DeleteHashTags

    3. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm starting to wonder if Twitter is pushing this, because it's being done as a "Twitter hashtag."

      I mean, yes, Facebook is evil, but why delete Facebook specifically NOW? Because they've done anything they haven't done in the past? No, they did the exact same thing for Obama's campaign, and no one batted an eyelash.

      But now all of a sudden everyone is talking about "#DeleteFacebook." Not "Delete Facebook," specifically "#DeleteFacebook."

      Twitter does the same damned things Facebook does. There are Twitter trackers on every page. (Even this one.) They collect user data without consent. They sell it to advertisers. They run facial recognition on every image uploaded. They have "shadow profiles" of non-Twitter users.

      So why just Facebook?

      I think we all know the real reason.

    4. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a theatre catalogue for 2018/2019 I had to do layout on today I had to remove the follow us on Facebook section and replace it with a visit our web page section, witch made me smile since I never have had a private facebook account.

    5. Re:Just a Start. by gnick · · Score: 2

      Now delete Twitter too.

      Twitter's where I get raw, unfiltered messages from my president. That's the only reason I have it installed and the only reason I'm keeping it. I'm a big DJT critic, but I don't know why every American isn't following him on Twitter.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Just a Start. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Delete /.

    7. Re:Just a Start. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      It's called "jump on the bandwagon". People like to (visibly) join popular movements. Pretty much everyone already agreed that sexual abuse is bad, yet it took a schandal and a subsequent movement to get the #metoo ball rolling and have everyone publicly speak out against it. Same for the FB schandal.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cuz you don't need a twitter account to see his tweets.

    9. Re:Just a Start. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Now delete Twitter too.

      Elon can't delete Twitter. He's had a neural lace implant that streams his consciousness directly to his Twitter feed.

      Without Twitter, he'd die!

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    10. Re:Just a Start. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is not 'social media' by a longshot. The only thing they know about me is a random email address they required for me to have an account here, and a totally fake name that I use for the account, because no way in hell I'm using my real name online. Even if they're building some sort of personality profile, they have no real name to link it to, not without a court order anyway. Slashdot is a pseudo-news site with commenting, not 'social media'.

    11. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DeepState take there bruh

    12. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And #DeleteTrump

      (captcha: spooky :)

    13. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also #WipeHillary, just to make sure.

      She was an expert on that.

    14. Re:Just a Start. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      /. is antisocial media...You bunch of festering, basement dwelling, cheeto eating trogs.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only thing they know about me is a random email address they required for me to have an account here, and a totally fake name that I use for the account

      And your IP address. And your location. And your language. And your OS. And your browser. And your screen resolution. And which fonts you have installed. And your referrer. And which stories you view. And which comments you read. And which comments you post. And which links you click. And which ads you view. And a whole shitload of information that you don't even know about.

    16. Re:Just a Start. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Slashdot introduced many social-media like features before there was a such thing as social media and people on the internet often closely associated their real identity with their online identity. The assumption being that the only people who would encounter your online identity would be your nerd pals.
      People used to put their home address on their signatures and talk shit on usenet every day for years without any consequences. It's so hard to imagine these days.

    17. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Slashdot is not 'social media' by a longshot. The only thing they know about me...

      So the difference between /. and social media is the use of an alias?

      Bullshit. /. is social media just as much as Facebook is. You just don't want to admit that you use social media.

    18. Re:Just a Start. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Funny

      ..says the festering, basement dwelling, cheetoh-eating trog, commenting on my comment on Slashdot.

      ..meanwhile, I'm over 6 feet tall, have a bodyfat percentage around 10%, have a decent face, a decent personality, and so on. You mad, manlet? xD xD xD

    19. Re:Just a Start. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      None of which means shit when they don't know who I really am. Troll harder..

    20. Re:Just a Start. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Now delete Twitter too.

      Why? Twitter at least gets a message spread fast without the retardedness of Facebook.

    21. Re:Just a Start. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Now delete Twitter too.

      Seconded.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    22. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means they can show you ads you're more likely to click on. It means they can sell your info to someone who correlates it with other info in order to learn more about you, serve more ads or even deanonymize you.

    23. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like with a cloth?!?!

    24. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to hash tag that to make people fall for it!

      #DeleteTwitter

    25. Re: Just a Start. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      1. Adblocker + NoScript = No ads (can't remember the last time I ever saw one, even)
      2. Did you skim too fast over the part where I said "I don't use my real name online, ever"?

      Troll harder, you're boring me.

    26. Re:Just a Start. by supremebob · · Score: 1

      You got to hand it to Elon Musk, though. He has the tech press turning his every word into a front page headline.

      It reminds me of the constant Steve Jobs posts we used to see here 10 years ago.

    27. Re:Just a Start. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      So... after doing #DeleteFacebook we start a Facebook page about deleting Twitter accounts?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    28. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live 5 ft above ground how dare you.

    29. Re:Just a Start. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      #metoo happened because it's such a common experience to be shit on by some other human being and just have to eat it because of the circumstance. So all of these people had been walking around for decades with these little demons waiting to be aired.

      This was engineered by the outrage-media industry but really the whole fucking thing was beautiful because not only did a lot of creeps get totally exposed but the whole thing backfired and came back to fuck over so many important media and hollywood types. The same assholes who smugly lectured the rest of America and stirred to pot for power and profit over the smallest of social transgressions when in reality they're the slimest fuckers outside of Washington DC.

    30. Re:Just a Start. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Let's just hope Tesla won't start removing doors on their cars in 10 years.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    31. Re:Just a Start. by war4peace · · Score: 0

      Also: your IP(s), your online hours (which can be used to obtain your timezone), your political preferences, your subjects of interest, your social preferences and more.
      Random example: "I'm over 6 feet tall, have a bodyfat percentage around 10%, have a decent face, a decent personality, and so on." You said so today. Of course, that could all be fake, but comment enough times and statistically significant data starts creeping up.
      Your comments give away a shit ton of info, combine that with generally available data (mentioned above) and your profile starts taking a pretty well defined shape.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    32. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is not 'social media' by a longshot. The only thing they know about me is a random email address they required for me to have an account here, and a totally fake name that I use for the account, because no way in hell I'm using my real name online. Even if they're building some sort of personality profile, they have no real name to link it to, not without a court order anyway. Slashdot is a pseudo-news site with commenting, not 'social media'.

      don't worry about it, you have already been "triangulated" a long long time ago, using basic knowledge of the internet which you failed to include into your grasp of reality.

    33. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jump on the bandwagon is how Facebook got started too. And it was how MySpace got started. And Geocities. And AOL.

    34. Re:Just a Start. by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they did the exact same thing for Obama's campaign, and no one batted an eyelash.

      No, they didn't. This has been debunked multiple times. The Obama campaign did use Facebook, but not in the dishonest underhanded way CA did.

      Twitter does the same damned things Facebook does

      Not really. Twitter doesn't keep track of my age, employment history, address, club memberships, or the same information about my friends. At best, someone trying to find information about "squiggleslash" will figure out what city in Florida I live in and my approximate age, and might be able to guess algorithmically my politics, but would have a hard time finding out anything more specific. My schools? Names of employers? Forget it. You would find out the same information as you would on Slashdot, and nobody's arguing we should delete Slashdot. Well, not over privacy concerns anyway. I mean, it's pretty awful these days, a den of entitled misogynist jackwagons for the most part that rarely discusses anything interesting to do with tech, but, well, that's a different argument.

      Facebook collects massive amounts of personal data, not just about you but about your friends. Even your friends who aren't on Facebook. It links this data to you personally, not a pseudonymous ID. And then it makes all that information available via the Graph API to anyone who's able to persuade you to use FB as a login method or something else unrelated to privacy.

      Facebook can fix this in an instant - shut down the APIs. Introduce replacements that only allow for basic authentication and specific actions the user has to confirm. Users addresses and other information they've entered should never be shared with anyone via the API and there should be very limited access to that information via other means. There is no reason to share that information via APIs, it should not be shared via APIs. They should block that kind of information from being shared via APIs.

      They choose not to. Shut the fuckers down.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Possibly not doors, but I bet that their steering wheels go the way of the headphone socket.

    36. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe I know you, Sven.

    37. Re: Just a Start. by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm over 6 feet tall, have a bodyfat percentage around 10%, have a decent face, a decent personality, and so on

      Ah. You're Bruce Jenner!

    38. Re:Just a Start. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot: a great sense of humor and perception.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Just a Start. by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Twitter does the same damned things Facebook does. There are Twitter trackers on every page. (Even this one.) They collect user data without consent. They sell it to advertisers. They run facial recognition on every image uploaded. They have "shadow profiles" of non-Twitter users.

      So why just Facebook?

      I think we all know the real reason.

      It's strategery.

      Had you started with twitter #DeleteFacebook wouldn't work.

    40. Re: Just a Start. by Rei · · Score: 2

      He's talked about that:

      Yeah, it’s borderline. FB influence is slowly creeping in.

      Instagram’s probably ok imo, so long as it stays fairly independent. I don’t use FB & never have, so don’t think I’m some kind of martyr or my companies are taking a huge blow. Also, we don’t advertise or pay for endorsements, so don’t care.

      --
      Is your job to sit under bridges and jump out at unsuspecting travellers?
    41. Re:Just a Start. by sinij · · Score: 2

      /. is antisocial media...You bunch of festering, basement dwelling, cheeto eating trogs.

      I only identify this way now after I transitioned. I was born a meat-head jock.

    42. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, they didn't. This has been debunked multiple times. The Obama campaign did use Facebook, but not in the dishonest underhanded way CA did.

      You are splitting hairs. Obama used Facebook in literally the same way CA did. The only difference was that Facebook knew they were using the data and didn't care. (Although there's pretty strong evidence they knew CA was, too.)

      Beyond that the data accessed and the data mining done with it were practically identical.

    43. Re:Just a Start. by Baton+Rogue · · Score: 1

      Twitter's where I get raw, unfiltered messages from my president. That's the only reason I have it installed and the only reason I'm keeping it. I'm a big DJT critic, but I don't know why every American isn't following him on Twitter.

      I actually did start following Trump when he got elected. I stopped after a month because all he ever posted was negative stuff and attacks against anyone that was critical of him. Nothing he ever posts is relevant to anything, and most of it is false,

    44. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your writing style which can identify you on other sites

    45. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well now we also know you're an asshat

    46. Re:Just a Start. by schklerg · · Score: 1

      I still don't want to have a twitter account, so https://twitrss.me/ lets me live the dream of reading poorly worded tweets without the burden of actually having an account.

      --
      Be Excellent To Each Other
    47. Re:Just a Start. by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only all of that, they also download the photos with location data from your mobile, and run face recognition software on them. There is something in the US called BIPA (Biometric Information Privacy Act) though, and an ongoing lawsuit against Facebook claiming that Facebook's face recognition violates BIPA. They don't this in EU probably due to the tougher GDPR regulations.

      Note that you can configure the app and shut off the face recognition if you want.

    48. Re:Just a Start. by gnick · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant, often false, but a raw view into the unusual mind of a very powerful man.

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

      Not even worth replying as me anymore. *yawn*

    50. Re:Just a Start. by gnick · · Score: 1

      I did say "following him on Twitter". I misspoke. I just meant "paying attention to his Tweets". Using the app just saves a step while adding nothing useful.

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

      If we delete twitter how will we know when Kentucky Fried Chicken comes out with something new on the menu?

    52. Re: Just a Start. by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Actually, I come here to release my inner trog (so that my clients don't see it).

    53. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: she lost. You can stop giving her free rent in your headspace now.

    54. Re:Just a Start. by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Obama campaign complied with Facebook’s terms of service, collected data with its own app, did not give data to third parties, and got permission from users before using the data.

      CA violated Facebook rules, and their fired CEO offered to entrap political rivals with secret videotapes and sex workers on the UK Channel 4 TV.

    55. Re:Just a Start. by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think we all know the real reason.

      Yes, Obama was supremely boring. We can all agree about that. It's not just the fact that he won two elections quite decisively, so no one took a close look at the results and at what could have made the difference.

      It's the fact that the American public has the attention span of a fruit fly. If Obama had stories that included the use of Ukrainian hookers for political blackmail, nepotism up the wazzoo, Russian money mules like the Mercers trying to influence the elections, and Russian hackers and trolls, you can bet that the American public would have tuned in.

      What kind of political intrigue and sex scandals did Obama give us? Really? Can you even remember anything? The Weiner guy. That's about it. That was funny for five minutes, and then that was funny when he did the same thing again and again, but after a certain point, it got boring. Plus, I don't think you can credit Obama for that one.

    56. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was an absolute pleasure to downmod you, just because i could.

    57. Re:Just a Start. by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      Just delete the whole internet while you at it.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    58. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one who says anything like that has a decent personality, nor is in good mental health.

      In fact, the very fact you had to tell the internet how awesome you are identifies you as suffering from extreme insecurity.

      The fact you have such a high opinion of yourself makes you arrogant and vain, and so you by definition don't have a decent personality.

      So in your attempt to make yourself sound awesome you've highlighted that you're someone who is astoundingly vain and arrogant and who maintains those traits to try and desperate mask over their deep seated insecurities.

      Next time keep quiet, you're fooling no one smart enough to see right through your comments.

    59. Re:Just a Start. by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 2

      Why don't you ask Facebook who have banned CA for violating it's data use policies? Facebook were informed about what the Obama campaign did, and had no complaints. But listen I'm not a fan of anyone using Facebook data for political marketing. It's not what democracy should be about. Nonetheless there is a big difference between these two examples.

      And note that the attorney general of Massachusetts is opening an investigation into Facebook and CA possible violation of privacy laws.

    60. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's also a very stable genius.

    61. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the command?

      rm -rf /.

      Hold on while I try the comma$CARRIER LOST

    62. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's adorable that you think that.

    63. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous coward is an asshole. News at 11.

    64. Re:Just a Start. by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      The only thing they know about me is a random email address they required for me to have an account here, and a totally fake name that I use for the account, because no way in hell I'm using my real name online.

      [later ...]

      ..meanwhile, I'm over 6 feet tall, have a bodyfat percentage around 10%, have a decent face, a decent personality, and so on.

      So what you're saying is nothing you post is real.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    65. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      based

    66. Re:Just a Start. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is most definitely not a pseudo news site. You apparently do not understand slashdot at all. Slashdot is an exchange of ideas site framed around interesting stories, ideas and questions. Slashdot is about the comments, the exchange of ideas, to trigger no ideas, to explore existing ones of of course to flip ideas on their heads. What happens there in after beyond slashdot with regard to those ideas is up to individual slashdotters but you should not claim of the ideas of others as your own, really rather poor form and in some instances illegal. Although you most certainly are free to work with and explore those ideas. Slashdot is not a news forum, it is an ideas forum which is why many people struggle with it but others find it fascinating and especially fascinating how those ideas expressed on slashdot expand beyond slashdot through the AI that is the internet, by far the majority of the internet oblivious to where those ideas originated.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    67. Re:Just a Start. by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I eat pizza with Doritos on you insensitive clod!

    68. Re:Just a Start. by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I'll never be jealous of a 4 million uid!

    69. Re:Just a Start. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      And quit littering your language with branding too: "podcast"? I'd rather not celebrate an abusive organization or their products.

    70. Re:Just a Start. by mentil · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it started in Hollywood in the first place, with the Harvey Weinstein allegations. Although it just continued the recent practice of a bunch of women coming forward at once with allegations, as happened with Trump (among many other politicians, remember Schwarzenegger?), and earlier with Cosby.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    71. Re:Just a Start. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      they already started with door handles

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    72. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rm -rf /.

    73. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *am* a festering, basement dwelling, cheeto eating trog, you insensitive clod!

    74. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes Slashdot not social media is that is existed before the term "social media" did.

      BBSes could retroactively be considered "social media" too, but most people who used them don't consider them to be.

    75. Re:Just a Start. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Did you know about the fuckyer? It's a % sign.
      So if they have #WomensRights, just counter that with a fuckyer - %WomensRights.
      I introduced the Troll. It's a * sign. *WomensRights.

      Some people can't handle the troll though. I even tell people I'm about to troll them and they STILL fall for it. Conditioned responses from the left. It's so much fun, for the whole family.

    76. Re:Just a Start. by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      The media has been aggressively commercializing feminism for like a decade but I think the Cosby helped pull the spotlight from nerds and other socially defenseless awkwards over onto the media and celebrity types whose sexist behavior and harassment has always been rampant and more or less openly permitted. It's a bit of a witch hunt so I hope it doesn't become a new norm but I do hope it continues long enough to spread into other little enclaves of people who normally live beyond repercussions.

    77. Re:Just a Start. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      You are splitting hairs. Obama used Facebook in literally the same way CA did. The only difference was that Facebook knew they were using the data and didn't care. (Although there's pretty strong evidence they knew CA was, too.)

      Beyond that the data accessed and the data mining done with it were practically identical.

      The difference is between asking for something (and receiving it) versus stealing it. Both end up with the thing, so it is the same?

      There is a big difference.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    78. Re: Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of all the great things about me, number one over them all is my amazing humility.

    79. Re:Just a Start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CARRIER LOST

      You can always tell that someone is a poser when they don't know it's "NO CARRIER".

  2. Why we can't have nice things by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generic Relative/Friend: What Facebook did is horrible! Someone should go to jail. Muh privacy!
    You: Hey, I heard about this other social media site with different business model. You want to try it out together to see if we like it better than FB?
    Generic Relative/Friend: No! I have no time for that! *Posts more crappy memes on Facebook*

    In terms of reputation, if Comcast is the bottom of the barrel, Facebook's rep is now buried 6 ft under the barrel and Generic Relative/Friend cannot even spend 10 minutes to try a competing site.

    This is why politicians are absolutely justified in thinking the masses are moronic asses.

    1. Re:Why we can't have nice things by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...cannot even spend 10 minutes to try a competing site.

      Adoption rate is more important to social media than features. Google+ may be terrific, and I even signed up, but I know very little about it because the people I want to talk with are on FB. The egg predates the chicken, but they continue their cycle.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Why we can't have nice things by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any real competing networks. It isn't real competition if everyone isn't already on it, it uses a bunch of handles instead of names (ala instagram) you can't create groups/events to organize friends around, and/or they all contain the same bugs with regard to the messaging (no proper searchable archive of messages) component. Hell most of the so called alternatives are nothing more than the latest IM, usually with a bunch of anonymity cloaked features that are really just aids for people cheating on their partners or children hiding things from their parents. These are not things we should be supporting. Making history wipes/disable automatic isn't a feature. Erasing the digital fingerprints of children/partners hiding things from their SO is not something we should encourage. Building these capabilities into common apps that aren't a fingerprint by their presence is just as bad.

    3. Re:Why we can't have nice things by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I guess I'm shocked that people are just now coming to the revelation that anything they post on the Internet can be found and used by other people.

      If the financial bureaus can't even keep your shit secure, why would a company that literally makes their money by productizing other people's information?

      So much undue rage over the most obvious shit.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Why we can't have nice things by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It isn't real competition if everyone isn't already on it,

      So you're saying that for Facebook to have competition, they already need to be Facebook?

      Good luck with that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Why we can't have nice things by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "So you're saying that for Facebook to have competition, they already need to be Facebook?

      Good luck with that."

      You can say good luck with that all day it doesn't change the reality. Why would anyone want to use a platform that is entirely about connecting and keeping up with all their infrequently contacted friends and family when none of those people use it? This is a chicken and egg type scenario that is pretty characteristic of monopolies like Facebook and is hardly new. We see the same thing with Microsoft Windows... nobody wanted to use a platform that all their applications don't run on and that they couldn't count on being present wherever they went to work and all their friends/family using to enable a community support base. Nobody wants to spend the money to port all those applications and/or their business infrastructure on anything but the most popular platform... therefore the most popular platform remains the most popular platform as long as it manages to be "good enough."

    6. Re:Why we can't have nice things by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I'm looking into starting a BBS again, hosted with Synchronet. Fuck this. Want in? Terminal baby!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Mark Zuckerberg needs to go to jail for what he did with his homepage.

    8. Re:Why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound like youve had someone cheat on you and now you have an axe to grind:

      "Hell most of the so called alternatives are nothing more than the latest IM, usually with a bunch of anonymity cloaked features that are really just aids for people cheating on their partners or children hiding things from their parents. These are not things we should be supporting. Making history wipes/disable automatic isn't a feature. Erasing the digital fingerprints of children/partners hiding things from their SO is not something we should encourage."

      I can think of many reasons that people would need to hide things/erase their digital fingerprints, things such as:
      Corporate whistle blowers,
      Confidential Informants,
      Witness protection,
      Kids being dumb asses and not letting it effect the rest of their adult lives,
      Abuse survivors,
      People experimenting with their sexuality,
      Pretty much any victim that doesn't wish for their past to permanently affect their future.

      Sure there might be some bad things that we have to take with the good (just like we balance when we consider free speech) and that may mean the ability for people to hide things from their partners. Part of any relationship is trust, and trust is earned but not through that person letting you read everything that the wrote on a website because they really could just use another website, messenger, computer, phone or even good ole fashioned mail to do the same thing. You cannot protect yourself from being deceived based on exterior limits, you can only pay attention and act accordingly and even then you will still end up being deceived at some point, its how you deal with it that defines you as a person. Expecting social media sites to solve your trust issues is definitely barking up the wrong tree, its the Internet, you can be anyone you want to be here.

      PS i also find it semi-ironic that you actively contribute to a website that allows people to comment anonymously

    9. Re:Why we can't have nice things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet, Facebook exists when it had the same problem.

      How'd that happen, you think?

    10. Re:Why we can't have nice things by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      I still miss comp.os.misc, comp.arch., and sci.space. As late as 1998.
      Back when news actually had content. Not spam.

    11. Re:Why we can't have nice things by antdude · · Score: 1

      Bah! WWIV!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:Why we can't have nice things by shaitand · · Score: 1

      FB never had the same problem. Once upon a time there was myspace but myspace never penetrated beyond kids and certainly never achieved general usage. FB is more ubiquitous than IE or the windows desktop ever was.

    13. Re:Why we can't have nice things by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Corporate whistle blowers,
      Confidential Informants,
      Witness protection,"

      And you are suggesting social media is the place for this? There are no shortage of solutions to fill this space and ways to make them disappear... anyone who actually has need of this level of security and confidentiality can spend a couple hours learning how to do so.

      None of the rest of that requires both erasing history (something I didn't object to) and erasing the evidence of having erased history. Being able to search and refer back to history is by far the more commonly needed feature, having everything disappear by default makes no sense. Experimenting with sexuality? Seriously, are we back in the 80's or something? Experimenting with your sexuality was trendy last decade along with pretending to be an oppressed outcast while doing that trendy thing, now it's being flexible sexually and not putting labels on it. Try to keep up. Even if that were an issue it isn't something which grants some sort of moral pass for violating the trust of a partner. You break-up/get divorced/etc if you want to go exploring, like a mature grown up.

  3. Summary misspelt social. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > on the world's biggest social^H^H^H^H^H^Hcommercial sellout network,

    FTFY.

  4. It's all garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like complaining how unhealthy McDonalds food is while eating at an Arby's. Twitter is no better.

    1. Re:It's all garbage by JcMorin · · Score: 1

      In general in Twitter you don't post all your real life friend, family, co-working and picture and places of everything you go and like.

    2. Re:It's all garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general in Twitter you don't post all your real life friend, family, co-working and picture and places of everything you go and like.

      In general if you're not an idiot you don't fucking USE Twitter.

  5. Delete all the things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ALL OF THEM

  6. Facebook by no-body · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At it's beginning, I checked their User Agreement and whatever content I would post there pictures etc., it would become Facebooks property and that was not to my liking, never looked back to there. Proofed me just right in doing so by not participating on this circus.

    1. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are kind of an idiot if you don't understand why they say they own it.

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

      Not many people understand the subtleties of "your work is covered by an automatic, century-plus-long copyright, and it is copyright infringement to transmit, reproduce or copy that work without granting your cloud provider an unlimited license to do so."

    3. Re:Facebook by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...it would become Facebooks property and that was not to my liking...

      When I signed up in 2008, their stated position was otherwise. There's a clip from a 2009 interview (CNN I think) where Zuck specifically says that the data is owned by the user, will only be shared with the people the user selects, and will never be sold. I don't know when they made the "fuck users; get money" decision. I'd link to the clip, but I can't hunt for it at work.

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

      Also doesn't know the difference between it's and its and there and their and proofed and proved.

    5. Re:Facebook by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Just live in a shitty apartment building with thin walls like the rest of us and you'll have front row seats every evening.

    6. Re:Facebook by no-body · · Score: 1

      You are kind of an idiot if you don't understand why they say they own it.



      Terrific - are you stoned, what are you taking?
    7. Re:Facebook by SGDarkKnight · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how many companies do this with content you upload to them. If you want to get really large images made up, and the shops (let's say Black's Photography) can't do it in house. They ask you to upload it to their website and it will be done and shipped to the closest location. Upon reading the fine print in website user agreement, they then own that image and can use it however they like.

      I don't remember the last time I uploaded an image to any website (social or otherwise) because they all use the same language in the end user agreements now.

      --

      ...A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool...
    8. Re:Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell your mom to quiet down.

    9. Re:Facebook by no-body · · Score: 1

      You would be surprised how many companies do this with content you upload to them. If you want to get really large images made up, and the shops (let's say Black's Photography) can't do it in house. They ask you to upload it to their website and it will be done and shipped to the closest location. Upon reading the fine print in website user agreement, they then own that image and can use it however they like.

      I don't remember the last time I uploaded an image to any website (social or otherwise) because they all use the same language in the end user agreements now.



      Just another example how corporations rule and dominate the life of normal people more and more unhindered by the totally corrupt political system in the US.
      We support you by funding you and you do our work, if not, we will stop supporting (funding) you.
      Bribery par exemple.

      You have no right - go home!
    10. Re:Facebook by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      When I signed up in 2008, their stated position was otherwise. There's a clip from a 2009 interview (CNN I think) where Zuck specifically says that the data is owned by the user, will only be shared with the people the user selects, and will never be sold

      <voice=Mark Zuckerberg doing a bad Darth Vader impression>
      I have altered the agreement. Pray I do not alter it further.
      </voice>

    11. Re:Facebook by gnick · · Score: 2

      I'm home from work. The 2009 Zuck interview was with BBC News, not CNN.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re:Facebook by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When I read the T&Cs some years ago, you are right that the data remained owned by you; however, you did grant Facebook a perpetual, sublicenseable, transferrable, commercial license to anything you uploaded. You also agreed to indemnify Facebook in case you didn't own the rights, so if you uploaded something to Facebook that you didn't own, they sold it to someone else to use in an ad campaign (as they did with photos taken in Starbucks, for example) and the copyright holder sued then you agreed to pay Facebook's costs.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. #DeleteSlashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Anonymous Coward disappeared in a puff of logic)

  8. Alternatives To Facebook? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After years of resisting joining Facebook, I caved after publishing my first novel. I figured that it was a potential place to spread the word of my book and I couldn't ignore it. As a method of spreading the word, it's pretty bad, though. If you post something, everyone who follows you won't see it. Not unless you pay Facebook to spread it to more people than the people they deem will see your message. If a group of people follow me, I'd think they should ALL see my message, but apparently Facebook disagrees.

    I'd be interested in any alternatives to Facebook that people can recommend. (And, no, "get off all social media" is not a valid alternative.) Are there up and coming social media sites that are viable alternatives to Facebook? Obviously, they might not have the number of users that Facebook has, but if you set the page to be public, it doesn't matter if the person is a subscribed member or not.

    At this point, I'm thinking of going back to my blog and maybe using IFTTT to auto-post links on Facebook about my blog posts.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each person is following up to 5000 pages, you can’t expect them to see every of everyone’s post, especially if you post often

    2. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      What do you expect? You joined a site full of people jumping up and down, going 'look at me, look at me!' You somehow expect everybody to 'look at you'?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in any alternatives to Facebook that people can recommend. (And, no, "get off all social media" is not a valid alternative.)

      Yes it is. Do what every successful author did: get a good publisher and let them advertise for you.

      Any other option is "putting failure into your own hands".

    4. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by isj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Something weird is definitely going on with facebook likes and post engagements. Veritasium made some observations: https://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag
      Bottom line: buying facebook promotions can have a negative impact.

    5. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is the alternative. Even Elon Musk follows Slashdot on Twitter

    6. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Scroatzilla · · Score: 2, Informative

      minds.com

    7. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Patreon?

    8. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by heteromonomer · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up.

      Just checked it out as well as I could. Seems quite good and on the right track.

    9. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Gunbook is a real bang!

      https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/03/23/0026259/man-starts-gunbook-social-media-site-after-his-gun-loving-friends-were-kicked-off-facebook

      #runforexit#

    10. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there up and coming social media sites that are viable alternatives to Facebook?

      No. The "killer app" that Facebook has that no other site does is everybody's there, and you can get in touch with people you might have lost track of or communicate easily with many diverse groups of friends. Every new site has to start from scratch, so they have to actually provide something that can draw people.

    11. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, moron, what you're really objecting to, without saying it or perhaps without knowing it, is not Facebook per se, but the unavoidable Facebook revenue model. Every company that would want to be like Facebook will have to engage in the same data-sucking behavior in order to stay afloat. Just start getting used to the idea that the world is not going to suffer much from not knowing about your novel.

    12. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a solution: you're a dick. Get off social media.

    13. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Lightman_73 · · Score: 1

      For stories/novels/writing in general, I'd suggest Medium. Check it out ;)

    14. Re: Alternatives To Facebook? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Just checked it out as well as I could. Seems quite good and on the right track.

      My default feed on it is mostly filled with right wing pundits and conspiracy whackjobs. It's basically a far-right Facebook, without the privacy issues.

    15. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is pretty stupid. I follow about 30 people. 10 of those are marked "see first."

      Pretty much the ones dominating my feed are the 20 people who are not marked "see first." Even if I know with full confidence there is a brand spanking new post from someone on "see first."

      So evidently there are a bunch of fucking morons who don't know how to code working at Facebook.

      They can tell you the big O notation of something but they can't write a function that works.

    16. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by JThundley · · Score: 1

      If you want to use Facebook for marketing, why not just hire a marketing company? Or pay Facebook to market to its users?

    17. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Facebook primarily to check 3 pages of bars in my area to see what the lunch specials are when I feel like lunch.

      Would much rather visit their website if that info was there.

    18. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A publisher manages publicity. If you self-published, you need to hire a publicist. This is why there is value in using an actual publisher whether it be books, music, or movies.

    19. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He even posts as Rei.

    20. Re: Alternatives To Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right is being forced off Facebook. In today's society they're the canary in the coal mine, which is why they typically are first to set up shop in new platforms. If the left wants to avoid it being a right wing echo chamber, they should move over as well. It's no good for either side to have unchallenged arguments.

    21. Re:Alternatives To Facebook? by raind · · Score: 1

      -The World Wide Web
      -Email
      -The telephone
      -Fax
      -Chat
      -Talking to people IN PERSON

      --
      Get up!
    22. Re: Alternatives To Facebook? by esonik · · Score: 1

      Read Seth Godin's blog.

  9. The conspiracy against Facebook/Google is paying o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone has been paying those third rate news sites - The Verge, Techdirt, Buzzfeed, with a couple stories in Bloomberg as well - to give Facebook and Google 100% negative coverage, nonstop, no matter what the topic is. Remember when those bloggers were typing "kill all bl" into the Google search bar, in order to get it to suggest "black people", which they could then be offended by? They're not saying it, but this has been their goal for over a year.

  10. Zuckerberg's understanding of AI was limited.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens when you steal all your ideas and don't actually create anything new.

  11. Let's become anti-social by jfdavis668 · · Score: 0

    Get rid of social media, we are pretty good at being anti-social anyway.

    1. Re:Let's become anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get rid of social media, we are pretty good at being anti-social anyway.

      tell us more about how you need a computer to communicate with other people, is it your body odor or are you just generally an asshole?

    2. Re:Let's become anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.twatter.com/

    3. Re:Let's become anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you people managed to have a social life before social media, or before the internet even ?

      Oh, I forgot. as a millenial, you don't give a fuck how people lived before YOU were born.

    4. Re:Let's become anti-social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you people managed to have a social life before social media, or before the internet even ?

      Better than now.

  12. Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Facebook has been used for market research and political research for years, and people generally viewed this as a positive: finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked. And the TOS make it pretty clear that data can be used for such purposes. All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook has been used for market research and political research for years, and people generally viewed this as a positive: finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked. And the TOS make it pretty clear that data can be used for such purposes. All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?

      you are just too stupid to understand that other humans have the capacity for growth and learning

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the wrong guy won. Its ok when they do it, not so ok when someone else does it.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a Facebook shill. Seriously.

      Do you really think people on facebook have read the TOS ? Have you actually read that encyclopedia yourself ? All of it ? And if yes, know that everyone is not a fucking autistic like you.

    4. Re:Why? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      If the campaigns were going to use this to figure out what people wanted and liked (higher minimum wages, better consumer protection, stricter gun laws, accepting more refugees) and implement those things, nobody would be upset. In fact they would be happy. People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections. Even somebody who read the ToS did not fathom the data being used in this way.

    5. Re:Why? by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      Fuck off ivan

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people sell their souls for free stuff.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? Facebook couldn't push the leftist agenda any harder if Zuck's very life depended on it.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because journalists hate Trump. So they make up this whole outrage shitshow.

      When Obama did the same they praised him for it.

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked.

      They could find out what morons with Facebook accounts wanted and liked. That's a sure way to send society straight to hell.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Trump used it.

      It was fine when the Obama re-election campaign had "unprecedented" access to Facebook data, and it was fine when every fortune 500 company was paying for the data to learn how to sell stuff to you, but we can't allow Trump to use it.

    11. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If the campaigns were going to use this to figure out what people wanted and liked (higher minimum wages, better consumer protection, stricter gun laws, accepting more refugees) and implement those things, nobody would be upset.

      So you are saying that Trump used this data, figured out what people didn't like, and then deliberately made that his platform? How in the world is that a winning strategy?

      People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections.

      How does market research on Facebook users "affect the integrity of our elections"?

    12. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      How much does Russia pay you to drive Americans apart and destroy confidence in the democratic process in the US, Ryanrule?

    13. Re:Why? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?

      Sausages. Everybody eats them, nobody wants to know how they're made. It's a "free" service, nobody wants to know why it's free. You think people read the ToS? I think there was a story about someone who made a metric to see how many had scrolled through the EULA in their installer before agreeing to it, it was like 99.9% no. Even if you give people the benefit of the doubt that some may be reinstalls or installs on multiple computers, people don't care at all.

      It should not be very difficult to create a decentralized Facebook clone. Not Diaspora easy (god that name alone sounds like you mangled diarrhea and fungal spores), but like if you invested a few million dollars then you're probably good. You can see the big services are cross-stealing ideas, there's not that many truly unique features. The problem is where's the profit in that? In fact, what pays your bills? People expect the service to the be "free", without access to the content you can't sell profiles, you can't sell ads, you can't sell trends... okay you can sell totally dumb ads, but that barely makes money.

      You'll probably have to run a hosted service for those who won't/can't self-host and won't use a third party service. And you'll have to deal with all sorts of shit posts and take downs and bots and whatever on what you host, just software is not enough. You'll have real staff running costs. Which means you need to make money somehow. I don't see any easy way out of that unless you run into a philanthropist with money to burn. And developers, or you'll end up like email and IRC. It was social media 25 years ago, but it hasn't evolved a bit since.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama and Hillary both made extensive use of Facebook and other online data. Conservatives didn't complain about it with Obama, they learned from him.

    15. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You sound like a Facebook shill. Seriously.

      I think Facebook is a shitty platform, both technically and socially, and I don't use it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy that when Obama did this (led by one of Facebook's co-founders no less), pundits were waxing ecstatic about how wonderful it was, but now all of a sudden it's supposed to be the end of democracy.

    16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even tho it's the standard and has been for years now it's an epic right now fucking problem because trump did it too.

      Trumps fault.

    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >what people actually want
      The market doesn't give a flying fuck what you want. Your fifty kilograms of meat and bone are an obstacle they have to subvert to take your money.

      This has a large Venn overlap with your description, but their objective, their purpose, their raison d'etre, is not identical. What does it matter then? What's the difference? Well,

      >it's positive for me; they work for my sake
      They don't.

      Events suggesting otherwise are frequent, constant even, but incidental.

    18. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sausages. Everybody eats them, nobody wants to know how they're made.

      My point is that Obama's 2008 campaign was run by Chris Hughes, a Facebook founder, and his 2012 campaign also made massive use of social media. The digirati and national media had no problem with billionaire money scraping Facebook for Obama. It seems hypocritical to complain when a (largely useless) firm associated with the Trump campaign gets a bit of anonymized data in the face of that history.

    19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask Why

      You are asking the wrong demographic.

    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?

      I could travel to your destination, buy you a beer, and explain the why.

      You would have to (at least) be mildly interested in discussing the What, Where and How of fb as well:)

      cheers

    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Researching what people want so you can give it to them is different from researching how to best manipulate people to want what you want to give to them. The former is "good" marketing, the latter makes people unhappy.

    22. Re:Why? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      The market research itself does not affect integrity of elections. What does affect elections is that it was done by a third-party on behalf of the campaign. The fair market value of the work that they did most certainly exceeded campaign contribution limits. So it amounts to a form of illegal campaign contribution. Had the campaign done it directly, your argument would likely carry the day. The issue with the Trump campaign is that it coordinated (the world colluded has too much of a negative connotation for objective discussion) with other groups in illegal ways. And even when the campaign wasn't aware (or can't be proven to be aware), many entities acted illegally to support the Trump campaign. This is yet another example. Now that may have happened on the Hillary side too and we're not hearing about it. But so far the smoking guns are mostly in the hands of Trump backers.

    23. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What does affect elections is that it was done by a third-party on behalf of the campaign. The fair market value of the work that they did most certainly exceeded campaign contribution limits. So it amounts to a form of illegal campaign contribution.

      Cambridge Analytica was paid nearly $6 million for their work, and their work was likely largely useless. Furthermore, this isn't being pursued as an "illegal campaign contribution" by anyone. So, your view there doesn't seem consistent with the facts.

      The issue with the Trump campaign is that it coordinated (the world colluded has too much of a negative connotation for objective discussion) with other groups in illegal ways.

      Well, you have failed to establish that for CA. Furthermore, just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it affects the integrity of an election. In fact, many election laws are designed to destroy the integrity of elections by giving incumbents an unfair advantage.

      Now that may have happened on the Hillary side too and we're not hearing about it.

      It most certainly did happy on the Hillary side: Silicon Valley was falling all over itself to provide free services and support to Hillary's campaign (same for the Obama campaigns); at my company, people disappeared for months on company dime to help out Hillary's campaign, amounting to hundreds of thousands in in-kind campaign contributions. However, that kind of sleazy and corrupt behavior is minor compared to the massive corruption in Hillary's campaign in other areas.

    24. Re:Why? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      It does appear to be being pursued as an illegal campaign contribution. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21... The one thing that seems to be consistent among the Trump defenders is that inappropriate activities weren't effective. I grew up near Camden NJ which at the time was the most dangerous city in the world. The police chief would always point out that the only different between aggravated assault and homocide was how well the perpetrator aimed. Just because you suck at cheating doesn't mean that you didn't cheat. We have to take this type of thing seriously because we have no way to roll back an election. Regardless of what illegal things happen, the winner stays in office unless they are convicted of a crime. And even then they can't be removed sometimes. We're in agreement that many laws are designed to impact the integrity of elections and provide unfair advantages. (See voter ID requirements, congressional districts) but that's a different kind of cheating.

    25. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Let's review your claim again:

      People are upset because the data was used in a way that affected the integrity or our elections.

      We're not talking about whether Trump is a good president or whether he violated any laws. We are talking about the integrity of the election, and you have failed to make any rational argument that there was any problem with the integrity of the last election. Now...

      It does appear to be being pursued as an illegal campaign contribution. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21... [npr.org]

      The NPR article says nothing about the integrity of the election. It also doesn't say that CA's activities were "pursued as an illegal campaign contribution", it's merely Peter Overby's opinion that it might be.

      The one thing that seems to be consistent among the Trump defenders is that inappropriate activities weren't effective ... Just because you suck at cheating doesn't mean that you didn't cheat.

      I'm not defending Trump. We are discussing your claim about the integrity of the last election. Even if Trump tried to cheat, but then sucked at it, then the integrity of the election was still preserved.

      We have to take this type of thing seriously because we have no way to roll back an election.

      Well, and when you have an argument that the "integrity of this election" was actually affected, by all means, do share it. CA using Facebook data clearly did not affect the integrity of the election, even if you could construe it to be illegal in some way.

    26. Re:Why? by DarenN · · Score: 1

      why are people so damn determined that "Obama did the same"

      Obama had a facebook app that you had to install, that told you what it was doing and that you agreed to what it was doing. It did not suck in all your connections data against the TOS and your own preferences. It did not "scrape". There has never been any hint of it, and you can be sure there _would_ be if it had happened because these are the times we live in.

      What Cambridge Analytica did was against the platform TOS, probably illegal, and they are being hauled over the coals for it. Rightly so, no matter who it was for.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    27. Re:Why? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Obama had a facebook app that you had to install, that told you what it was doing and that you agreed to what it was doing. It did not suck in all your connections data against the TOS and your own preferences. It did not "scrape".

      Scraping your connections is exactly what it did. And in Obama's case, it wasn't a company that got data from a researcher that got data from Facebook via an app, in Obama's case, it was his campaign.

      What Cambridge Analytica did was against the platform TOS, probably illegal, and they are being hauled over the coals for it. Rightly so, no matter who it was for.

      Whether Cambridge Analytica violated the TOS is a civil matter between Facebook and CA. I think that's questionable.

      In fact, instead of making this kind of data sharing illegal, we should do the opposite and make TOS that prohibit data scraping unenforceable. Right now, the data that Google and Facebook hold gives these companies a near monopoly on targeting voters for propaganda and manipulation, and given their massive support for Democrats in past elections, that certainly gives Democrats an unfair advantage.

      In no credible way, however, did either Cambridge Analytica's data mining undermine the integrity of the US election.

  13. People just moving to another Facebook site by DogDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    It makes no sense to quit Facebook and still use Instagram.

    It's the same damn company collecting the same damn data.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:People just moving to another Facebook site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shhh, you'll expose the wizard behind the curtain

    2. Re:People just moving to another Facebook site by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk said Instagram is "probably ok": https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s...

  14. Billionaire Cat Fight by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 2

    Musk doesn't like Zuck, and Zuck returns the favor. Not surprised Musk taking opportunity to dog-pile on the kid when he's down (his version of 'down' anyways).

    I've noticed the cattiness between these two for a couple years. They've been chippy in public regarding diverging views on AI. And probably didn't help that SpaceX blew up Facebook's pet-project satellite - which I thought was totally worth the firework but Faceboy not so thrilled about it if I remember correctly.

  15. #DeleteAllSocialMedia by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take your lives back, people.

    1. Re:#DeleteAllSocialMedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This (slashdot) is social media.

    2. Re:#DeleteAllSocialMedia by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1, Funny

      *sigh* No, it is NOT 'social media', you however are an idiot.

    3. Re:#DeleteAllSocialMedia by quantaman · · Score: 1

      This (slashdot) is social media.

      Just read at -1, you'll get enough anti-social media for it to all balance out!

      --
      I stole this Sig
  16. viva la revolucion by Tsolias · · Score: 1

    everything millennials want.
    the non-conformist tony stark. ....and never forget who started this trend https://ih0.redbubble.net/imag...

    in all seriousness, what did you expect from facebook? to hoard your data under some secret cave and xored with a 2Tb key? Whoever gets surprised by this, either lives under a stone or is genuinely stupid. I mean, come on, you are the product, what did you expect? ffs.
    Musk is more worried about his hairline and the emission taxes that he manages in some states, than the personal information of some idiot who joined the mod into the facebook.

  17. Facebook by ouachiski · · Score: 1

    But without Facebook how am I supposed to know what kind of ratchet stuff my neighbor's ex daughter in law's new step daughter is doing so that I can feel superior to my neighbor???

    --
    sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
  18. Because by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Facebook has been used for market research and political research for years, and people generally viewed this as a positive: finally, campaigns could figure out what people actually wanted and liked.

    No people don't regard this as a positive. People are indifferent to it the vast majority of the time if they are aware at all. I doubt you would find many people that think "gee Facebook being used for market research is a good thing for me". But it usually doesn't hurt them so they don't worry about it.

    All of a sudden this is a problem or a scandal? Why?

    Because sometimes it takes the masses a while to realize something is bad. Sometimes it takes a company doing something unsavory at a moment when people are sensitive to it for the problem to get fully recognized. Sometimes it's just a perfect storm of circumstances coming together. Whatever the reality might be it is "all of a sudden" a problem. It's always been a problem - just not recognized as such by a many people.

    Will anything come of Facebook's latest effort at being a Bond villian? I'm not optimistic. But hopefully it will be the start of some actual positive change.

    1. Re:Because by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      No people don't regard this as a positive.

      They certainly used to. How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics

      “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee,” said Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of The Huffington Post.

      And Barack Obama and the Facebook Election

      This election [2008] was the first in which all candidates—presidential and congressional—attempted to connect directly with American voters via online social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. It has even been called the "Facebook election." It is no coincidence that one of Obama's key strategists was 24-year-old Chris Hughes, a Facebook cofounder. It was Hughes who masterminded the Obama campaign's highly effective Web blitzkrieg—everything from social networking sites to podcasting and mobile messaging.

      Sometimes it takes a company doing something unsavory at a moment when people are sensitive to it for the problem to get fully recognized.

      True. And people are waking up to the degree that the Silicon Valley technocracy and their platforms (Google, Twitter, Facebook) are trying to manipulate them, are trying to influence elections, etc. Glad it's finally starting to sink in.

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

      Were members of the Obama campaign (like, say, the manager), then or now, in serious legal trouble for being undeclared foreign agents?

      There is a larger context that this story is taking place within.

  19. Your call by mohsel · · Score: 1

    Well as with every strategic decision you have to make, there is always advantages that come with disadvantages, and you have to accept that and chose accordingly.

    Being on facebook gives you a big amount of visibility but the audience is a rather not very clever one. they sell you quantity not quality but you take it anyway Mr.Musk. because maximum visibility is what i think you are seeking. otherwise you'd be good with RSS feed on your websites.
    My guess is that his facebook pages won't stay off for long. just surfing on the hype.

  20. tempest in a tea pot by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Look Google has a script that goes something like this

        (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
        (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
        m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
        })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');

      I put that on the website and both the website and the visitors get tracked. It's the same with facebook, bing, twitter and amazon; these guys are up our asses with a microscope. Sure we can block this technique, but they'll soon find another. it's like the story,

    Lady walking see a half frozen snake. She scoops him up, holds him to her bosom and warms him up. Snake is revived and bites her. She laments "Oh why did you bite me" to which the snake replied "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up".

    Likewise these companies collect data and sell both data and advertising, it's what they do and why they exist.

    If you don't want your data collected and tracked, you pretty much have to go live with sasquatch.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    1. Re:tempest in a tea pot by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      No just run uMatrix with default settings, which
      ** Blocks 1st party frames, and
      ** Blocks 3rd party:
      ** ** Cookies
      ** ** Media
      ** ** Scripts
      ** ** XHR
      ** ** Other

      I also remove most all of the uMatrix subscription lists, which are mostly redundant with the above settings. Although it will necessitate tweaking to get some sites to work -- mostly enabling CDN's.

  21. what now...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...do we all go back to myspace?

  22. This makes me want to join facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never had and desire to be on Facebook because it seems like it was full of righteous political hollier than though types. Now that all the socially conscious gentry are jumping off the Facebook band wagon, it is time for me to sign up.

    If you are heading against the mass of humanity you are heading in the correct direction.
    'Insanity in individuals is unusual. In groups and countries it is the norm'
    -some famous person who was accused of being a Nazi and a homosexual homophobe by the masses

  23. Man by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    I’m too early. I deleted all the social shit earlier this year.

    1. Re:Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’m too early. I deleted all the social shit earlier this year.

      but you're still dropping big stinky turds bombs on slashdot that have your distinct odor to them

  24. Remember AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For all those folks who think the fBook is here to stay, do y'all remember AOL (America Online)?

    It was the cat's pajamas (to use an antique phrase) in its day.

    1. Re:Remember AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AOL was for losers and old people, sorry.

    2. Re:Remember AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is exactly the rose-colored effect GP predicts

  25. A garbage can by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    That's what Facebook is good for. You use it to create accounts for sites in the web in which you want to make comments. All the resulting trash will go to your Facebook account. I haven't checked out mine in years, but I am sure that it must be brimming with garbage. Let the Facebook minions deal with that. You see? Facebook is good for something.

    1. Re:A garbage can by DogDude · · Score: 2

      That Facebook ID is used to track everything you do online. It's tied to your phone, if you use it there, or your home, via your ISP. Interacting with anything from Facebook, in any way, gets you tracked.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:A garbage can by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      What phone? The number that I gave, corresponding to a SIM card that I threw away years ago? I only use Fecebook (that's a more appropriate name for it) in my desktop, and in the way I described; I have no Fecebook app in my phone - they can't track me there. Fecebook does not have a phone number or email address associated with me that can reach me, for the email address I gave them is a garbage can one that I also never check. Apart from this, like I said, I haven't looked in my account for years, so any ad garbage that they try to foist upon me is a wasted effort. They know that somebody uses my account to visit a large variety of news sites every so often, but they can't tie down that activity back to me, personally, at least not with a major effort that is not worth their time. Even my IP address changes all the time. They sure can use all that info, but not to pester me in any way. But, at the very least, Fecebook is not useless.

  26. so can i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's good enough for me. If Elon can delete so can I

  27. No News for me by WoodburyMan · · Score: 1

    I have my own RSS aggregator for news. However, I primarily use my Facebook account to like companies like SpaceX, Tesla, and other interesting companies I like to find out about new products, watch cool videos they may publish, and sometimes see news they publish I may miss in my RSS feed. So, without this, I'm not less likely to know what SpaceX and Tesla are doing excpept negative news stories now posting how behind Tesla is on Model3 orders. Overall this will be bad for the company in terms of exposure, as that's how Tesla got it's real following. Alientating much of their base.

    I honestly hold absolutely nothing about Facebook in the last week to two weeks newsworthy or surprising given I've known for years friends email and contacts were being stolen via SPAM I would get on my email account, and thus made sure all apps got privileges revoked, and minimized my exposure. You're stupid to know assume your data on facebook was NOT being mined. Not a game changer for me.

  28. SNTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell isn't there some sort of open source solution for this? We could call it SNTP (social network transfer protocol) people set up and control their own SNTP content, anywhere you want . Companies could compete at doing this for you. Other companies (of governments) could aggregate this stuff, compete to bring it together and present large databases and portals of this information. The internet would be the wild west again, as it should be.

    1. Re:SNTP by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Because it would be heavily fragmented and there would be no central place everyone uses and standardizes on. Similar to open IM protocols like XMPP. They are abundant and essentially worthless outside of little corporate bubbles in your workplace because you are left trying to convince everyone to use the set of servers that you are using.

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

      I'm not sure why I can't see my original post about open source social network (SNTP) but let me respond. Sure, at first no one would care, but you could have free utilities to transfer your facebook info to new servers, and new social network companies could at least have a chance. No-one should own social networking especially some large unaccountable company like Facebook. The start could be from fragmented groups who don't want to deal with FB. The standardization would come from a standardization group. F facebook.

    3. Re:SNTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XMPP is federated so you don't have to convince everyone to use the same server as you. I say this not as an argument in favor of XMPP, but to point out that it's even harder to get people to use open standards than you suggest. People really like centralized services; only email and texting are entrenched enough that we have relatively open networks. I don't have a good solution, but with the backlash against Facebook happening now, maybe it's worth a try to push something else (a polished GNU Social or Diaspora maybe? I don't know.)

    4. Re:SNTP by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the principal I just don't think it works out like you'd want on the practical. I could be wrong though. It did happen once already, with FB taking over for myspace. On the other hand myspace never had the penetration level FB does... nobody's grandma used myspace.

      The only reason Instagram has taken off in the way it has is the integration with FB where everything essentially double posts.

    5. Re:SNTP by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "XMPP is federated so you don't have to convince everyone to use the same server as you. I say this not as an argument in favor of XMPP, but to point out that it's even harder to get people to use open standards than you suggest."

      That is true but first, most don't even know what XMPP is, so they aren't using a client that will let them add other servers. Second, corporations are able to take advantage of the open nature to deploy monitored and logged in house solutions for XMPP so they have corporate policies and often technical policies blocking you from using other servers sometimes from using other clients. Finally, MS bought skype and there are ways to tie it into windows AD authentication in such a way that you can't easily or intuitively configure third party applications for access in all cases.

      The general rule of thumb is that once your corporate employer becomes aware of something and has the ability to hook into it, it becomes effectively useless for any purpose but your job. Generally speaking, it also loses most of its productive value for actually doing your job as well.

  29. Disinformation campaign is better than quitting. by brainchill · · Score: 1

    They're extracting your data and using it against you. What if your data isn't your data. What if the things you like and argue about aren't really things that you care about? The answer is that it screws up their data about you. Now what happens if every 20 year old boy is a 73 year old woman on facebook? ... Their valuation plummets.

  30. Pot, Kettle, Black by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    This is why politicians are absolutely justified in thinking the masses are moronic asses.

    The real problem for democracy is that those same politicians are selected from those same masses.

    1. Re:Pot, Kettle, Black by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      This is why politicians are absolutely justified in thinking the masses are moronic asses.

      The real problem for democracy is that those same politicians are selected from those same masses.

      Oh, a stitch in time
      Just about saved me
      From going through the same old moves
      And this cat is nine
      He still suffers
      He's going through the same old grooves

      But that stone just keeps on rolling
      Bringing me some real bad news
      Takers get the honey
      Givers sing the blues

      -- "Too Rolling Stoned" -- Robin Trower

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  31. Advertizing is not Free by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    And, no, "get off all social media" is not a valid alternative.

    Yes it is. You are looking for a free way to advertize your book but social media platforms make their money by charging people to advertize. If this is what you are looking for get off social media and pay someone to advertize for you.

  32. Destruction by Mandrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What disturbs me about such deletion is the casual destruction of all the information and entertainment in the posts and comments. I know Facebook is renowned for the ephemeral and lightweight nature of its content, and almost all wouldn't have been worth preserving. But worthwhile stuff and history has also been lost.

    I felt the same way when IMDB deleted its fora.

    1. Re:Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, FB will just hide it. They are not the type of company to offer an honest delete option.

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

      Is this a joke? The only thing I can think of worse than facebook comments is the dark corners of 4chan.

    3. Re:Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMDB was a monumental bait and switch. I now make a point to never use their services.

      I regularly feel the same way about this site: why the fuck am I posting content to help the owners make money? It bothers me greatly.

    4. Re:Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too late to delete account. You want to keep it frozen with you name. If you do delete someone else could take possession of your name to do nefarious things. My advice: keep it frozen. Don't add content. don't delete.

  33. I cannot self terminate by istartedi · · Score: 1

    You must lower me into the steel.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  34. You are surely kidding, Elon! by aglider · · Score: 1

    Nothing can be really deleted at Facebook. Those things are forever once posted there!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  35. Google+ by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

    IT IS TIME! I knew this day would come!

    Rise, my golden demon!

  36. guess who's selling his Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and'll never ride to Mars?

    Guess a handful of Tesla/solar city and / SpaceX employees are wondering what they're gonna be doing tomorrow ...

  37. Maaan, i did that before it was a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    back in 2013. What did i win?

    1. Re:Maaan, i did that before it was a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a trick question y'all. I can't win.

  38. Because that stuff about what people like by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    has been revealed to be B.S.. It's not about giving people what they want, it's about manipulating them into doing as told. The CEO got caught on tape saying as much..

    I'm not opposed to advertising. Advertising can be a positive good. It can make people aware of things they never knew they wanted. But this wasn't advertising. This wasn't about convincing people they wanted Trump. And it certainly wasn't about Trump finding out what people wanted so he could give it to them. These people had long since decided on their political views and agenda and wanted to know how to get folks to go along with it, regardless of whether it benefited those people. This is the worst kind of politics.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because that stuff about what people like by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      has been revealed to be B.S.. It's not about giving people what they want, it's about manipulating them into doing as told. The CEO got caught on tape saying as much.

      Of course it is. Facebook is a manipulative, privacy-invading company. However, back when Chris Hughes ran Obama's online campaign, people hailed the use and analysis of social networks as the dawn of a new democracy, yet now that the other side is doing it, all of a sudden the same people are up in arms.

      These people had long since decided on their political views and agenda and wanted to know how to get folks to go along with it, regardless of whether it benefited those people. This is the worst kind of politics.

      That was Hillary's approach: Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.

      Of course, the last election wasn't much about positions anyway, it was about Hillary's personality and the fact that a large percentage of the voting population found her utterly disgusting and reprehensible. I left the Democratic party over her nomination and didn't vote at all in 2016.

  39. Maybe, but then again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are proper places for these things.Worthwhile stuff should be posted in their proper locations, instead of the wasteland we call Facebook

    And to use your example, movie trivia in forums should find a location on entertainment channels.Will it save the planet? Probably in a script somewhere being written.

  40. gay for Elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not gay, but we're I , he'd be it.

  41. What is facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the ultimate tool for massive mind control and world domination.
    Something that Stalin, Hitler and others of the kind could never dream of.

  42. Friendica, Diaspora, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a half dozen or more facebook-esque open source federated (like email, nntp, xmpp, etc using s2s networking) social networking platforms. But much like XMPP itself, they were either ignored or coopted and walled off by proprietary software companies over the years while our society of lazy dullards chose a particular service and stuck with it, just like the cliques of high school, rl social scene, and corporate past and present.

  43. Stallman was right. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    The move comes months after Musk said Zuckerberg's understanding of AI was limited.

    But Mark Zuckerberg was Time magazine's "Person of the Year"!

    1. Re:Stallman was right. by mentil · · Score: 1

      You know who ELSE was Time magazine's 'Person of the Year'??

      ...

      Obama.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  44. Iâ(TM)m beginning to like that Musk guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More companies should shun Facebook.

    Our school district had an emergency, and instead of having the information freely available on their website, they posted the information on Facebook. Unforgivable.

  45. I like Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure he's got a gigantic ego -- it don't think can be that successful without one -- but he's the least asshole-ish of the tech leaders. Plus, I like his sometimes punny (the "boring company" bit), sometimes outrageous sense of humor (not just launching Starman, but broadcasting "Life on Mars" to the solar system while doing it -- yes, I know you can't hear sound in space, but that's part of the fun so lighten up Francis).

    He seems like someone that would actually be fun to talk with (as opposed to someone like Zuckerberg or the former head douche of Über, both of who's smug arrogance I don't think I could stomach for more than a few seconds).