Slashdot Mirror


Nearly 1 In 10 Americans Have Deleted Their Facebook Account Over Privacy Concerns, Survey Claims (bgr.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report from BGR, summarizing a survey from TechPinions: With the outrage surrounding Facebook's privacy policies reaching a fever pitch over the past few weeks, there has been something of an underground movement calling for users to delete their Facebook account altogether. To this point, you may have seen the DeleteFacebook hashtag pop up on any number of social media platforms in recent weeks, including, ironically enough, on Facebook itself. While Zuckerberg last week said that the company hasn't seen a meaningful drop off in cumulative users, a new survey from Creative Strategies claims that 9% of Americans may have deleted their accounts.

The report reads in part: "Privacy matters to our panelists. Thirty-six percent said they are very concerned about it and another 41% saying they are somewhat concerned. Their behavior on Facebook has somewhat changed due to their privacy concerns. Seventeen percent deleted their Facebook app from their phone, 11% deleted from other devices, and 9% deleted their account altogether. These numbers might not worry Facebook too much, but there are less drastic steps users are taking that should be worrying as they directly impact Facebook's business model."

172 comments

  1. Hindsight by fred911 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is 20/20 but, they've already let the cat out of the bag.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Hindsight by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      The headline has a spelling mistake in it, it's Fecebook, not Facebook.

  2. If that claim is true,.. by Selur · · Score: 1

    count me impressed.
    Wouldn't have thought that it would be that much,...

    1. Re:If that claim is true,.. by the_saint1138 · · Score: 1

      I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.

      Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings.
      It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.

    2. Re:If that claim is true,.. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      9 out of 10 bot accounts then follow the users to their new social media brands.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:If that claim is true,.. by epine · · Score: 2

      This reported number doesn't pass my smell test, either.

      With such a precipitous drop in users, you'd probably hear the entire fabric of the universe groaning and throwing off glowing metallic divots as it passed through some kind of nearly impenetrable Wrong Stuff barrier.

      If true, this story would already be the Mount Krakatoa of the social media era.

      Maxwell Smart: Would you believe "1 in 10 are thinking about maybe deleting their account"?

    4. Re:If that claim is true,.. by epine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is actually a way to make sense of this: a lot of people deleting mostly dormant accounts, with hardly any content posted, having almost no discernable impact on Facebook's daily churn.

      Basically, it would be that group of people who only filled their Vicodan Rx once, and never actively sought a renewal to begin with, all suddenly flushing their nearly empty pill bottles, after a news report goes out that the smell of Vicodan pills is a randy Bugblatter aphrodisiac (but no-one else).

    5. Re:If that claim is true,.. by rsborg · · Score: 2

      This reported number doesn't pass my smell test, either.

      With such a precipitous drop in users, you'd probably hear the entire fabric of the universe groaning and throwing off glowing metallic divots as it passed through some kind of nearly impenetrable Wrong Stuff barrier.

      If true, this story would already be the Mount Krakatoa of the social media era.

      Maxwell Smart: Would you believe "1 in 10 are thinking about maybe deleting their account"?

      Several reasons this could be actually true

      1) Not really using FB - Many people have long since shifted their social media to things like WhatsApp, Snapchat/Instagram or
      2) Oversharing - Social media is so mainstream there are impacts to over-sharing (even my workplace tells us to be careful to not overshare - contrast with 5y ago that wasn't a big enough concern). With recruiters, employers, heck even banks looking at your "social media index", it's a liability to socialize the wrong things or with the wrong people.
      3) Quality - FB has gone some drastic shifts due to how they control who sees what you share, and their advertising model. People are getting wise to this (just by asking around - they find their family/friends' posts aren't being shown or family/friends not seing their stuff)

      I know a dozen people personally who stopped using FB months/years ago and have told me they are either planning on shutting down their accounts, have already done so, or are simply waiting (because they're EU based) will do so once GDPR comes into effect, allowing them to both request account deletion and confirm it's been deleted in one step (I'm not in EU so not sure how that works).

      This isn't the death knell for FB.com (the company is large and somewhat diversified so will survive), but I predict it's heyday has passed.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    6. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Well it's from a survey so it has to be true...
      The whole delete FB is slacktavism at it's finest. Lots of gonna do this but zero actual change.

    7. Re:If that claim is true,.. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the number I'm interested in. I want to know what advertisers are pulling Facebook ads. If you want to hurt Facebook, don't try to make people leave, organise a boycott of any company that uses Facebook for communicating with its customers and of any company that advertises on Facebook.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you want this to happen, don't just make a "consumer group". That shit never flies. Create a webpage and make sure it gets some media attention. Doesn't even matter whether any people follow it, what matters is that corporations think that it has some kind of impact on their bottom line.

      Hey, it worked with YouTube. Nobody I know really gave half a shit about the "outcry" about ads on terrorist videos, mostly because nobody I know really gave half a shit about the ads, all we did was concentrate on the lower right corner, repeatedly clicking the "skip" area as soon an ad was shown.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:If that claim is true,.. by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

      It's possible if most of them are inactive accounts. If I have an account that never use, it's easier to delete it, and also less noticeable.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    10. Re:If that claim is true,.. by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      Pretty much this.
      It's always the same people regurgitating bullshit daily.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    11. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You could try and teach people to never click on a Facebook ad.

      If you see something interesting (it happens sometimes) then google it in stead of clicking the ad.

      It's probably never going to happen in the slack-jawed 3rd world of Facebook users, but... worth a try.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:If that claim is true,.. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings."

      I saw people being asked on local TV and funnily, all the teens (4-5) said, when asked, Facebook is where old people hang out, not us, so they didn't care.

    13. Re:If that claim is true,.. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      1 in 10 doesn't seem such a big hit. I figure well over 1 in 10 people do not use Facebook regularly, all the news hype just reminded people that they don't use the site, so they just deleted their account.

      It is kinda like the subscription model for budget gyms. They make their money from the fact that their prices are so low that people don't feel a financial hit for paying for a gym membership they may never use. So they don't cancel their account, yet they don't go to the gym. So the gym makes money and the regulars get an affordable gym price.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    14. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It's possible if most of them are inactive accounts. If I have an account that never use, it's easier to delete it, and also less noticeable.

      An astute theory. If your account is already inactive you might be more inclined to go ahead and just delete your account.

      If I had an account I would delete mine.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:If that claim is true,.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you had an inactive account, why would you go through the hassle to log on, probably retrieving/resetting your password first, figuring half an hour how actually do the deleting ... ?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:If that claim is true,.. by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I did delete mine. It wasn't due to privacy concerns, but the privacy concerns did cause me to review my social media use. I discovered social media in my life was mostly one way (I posted and never read anyones comments). This was because reading the comments caused me to dislike most every human on social media. So I decided to simplify my life and remove facebook from it (and a few other social media profiles).

    17. Re:If that claim is true,.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I would also be impressed, but I seriously doubt that it's true.

      Sure, it's anecdotal, but I don't personally know anyone who's done more than change their privacy settings. It's really hard for me to believe they lost 1 in 10 users in the US.

      Yet... Because it's helpful to the narrative, this tripe gets reported, then quoted over and over. Eventually everybody will believe it's true.

      Somebody should give this practice a name.... Hmmm.... Maybe "Fake News(tm)" would be appropriate...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another way to look at it is this:

      The "Russian Bots" were registered as Americans and are not being deleted.

      See how easy it is to flip stats.

    19. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My girlfriend deleted hers, I could believe 1/10 would delete. I never thought she would give up Facebook and she isn't a light user. The privacy stuff finally hit home.

    20. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a way to make sense of this: a lot of people deleting mostly dormant accounts, with hardly any content posted, having almost no discernable impact on Facebook's daily churn.

      Basically, it would be that group of people who only filled their Vicodan Rx once, and never actively sought a renewal to begin with, all suddenly flushing their nearly empty pill bottles, after a news report goes out that the smell of Vicodan pills is a randy Bugblatter aphrodisiac (but no-one else).

      Besides, I would not recommend deleting the account, as your data are already in the wild. The only way to do damage control in this situation is by retaining at least some control of your identity, i.e., by staying on FB. If you leave, the people who have got your data will take effective control of it all, including being YOU.

    21. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... reading the comments caused me to dislike most every human on social media.

      I just finished reading your comment, and now I hate everyone. Thanks a lot, FictionPimp.

    22. Re:If that claim is true,.. by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I'm in the surprisingly long process of getting my FB account deleted, for similar reasons.

      I felt obligated to start a FB account since several acquaintances were using them and talking constantly about things they had seen on FB. My involvement was limited to following half a dozen "friends" involved in a couple of different mutual admiration societies who shared images and quips that reinforced their common prejudices but no real news or information. I took my FB activities dormant after about a year, and over the last three months I have been in a half-hearted effort to find out how to delete my account. And how to limit the exposure of my identity during that effort.

      It has only been in the last couple of weeks that I found reasonable instructions on how to get completely out of FB, which involves stating an intent to delete, then having to go through a waiting period, since FB wants to be sure that I really, really want out. Any contact with FB during this period will cancel my deletion. I assume I am close to being deleted now. Next month I'll test that and I sort of expect that I'll find that I missed some detail and I'm still a member. And even after I succeed in deleting the account, there is no way I can know whether FB continues to keep my data in its archives and keep offering it for sale.

    23. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deleted mine.

    24. Re:If that claim is true,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually a way to make sense of this: a lot of people deleting mostly dormant accounts, with hardly any content posted, having almost no discernable impact on Facebook's daily churn.

      Basically, it would be that group of people who only filled their Vicodan Rx once, and never actively sought a renewal to begin with, all suddenly flushing their nearly empty pill bottles, after a news report goes out that the smell of Vicodan pills is a randy Bugblatter aphrodisiac (but no-one else).

      I am placing you under citizens arrest for torturing a metaphor to death.

    25. Re:If that claim is true,.. by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      OR they never had a facebook account in the first place for the very same reason!

  3. Not That Big A Concern by rally2xs · · Score: 0

    Haven't had privacy since I got my first phone in my name. Everybody knew where I lived and how to contact me. So what? I actually want friends to be able to find me. For non-friends I have a Mossburg Maxi-Combo 500 in 12 gauge, so all's good. No worries.

    1. Re: Not That Big A Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aside from the typical but immense privacy concerns, they are also a platform for foreign interference in local and national elections and they themselves participate in electoral interference by shaping users' feeds based on how the company leans. Not a bad idea to just disconnect from them.

    2. Re:Not That Big A Concern by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      Privacy is not restricted to who you are and how to find you.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    3. Re:Not That Big A Concern by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you think that 'how to contact you' is all that they get from their massive surveillance and psychological profiling engine that you're happy to opt into, then you're incredible naive. That attitude does explain why so many people are on Facebook though.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Not That Big A Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't had privacy since I got my first phone in my name. Everybody knew where I lived and how to contact me.

      But what if you get charged 10% more for life/health insurance because you make vague threats to prove a point? Your Maxi can't save you from unproveable bias.

      And if your friends post could also do this, that is not ideal.

    5. Re:Not That Big A Concern by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Are you happy for your health-insurance company to know all your life details, too?

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Not That Big A Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mossberg or Dan Wesson or Glock .... don't miss the mark. It's your virtual contacts, not your meat-world contacts at issue vis' intrusion.

    7. Re: Not That Big A Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are not smart enough to ignore anything political on facebook, then that is your own fault. I am conservative, and NOTHING on facebook influenced me with regard to my political position. 1). I don't read politics on facebook 2). I use primary/mainstream news media from both left and right to make my judgements. 3). I am not that stupid

    8. Re: Not That Big A Concern by bobbied · · Score: 1

      3). I am not that stupid

      The problem with liberals is that they truly believe people are that stupid, epically those on the right. I had a discussion on FB this morning with a liberal who *started* the debate by calling me and my views stupid, made a comment that amounted to class envy (deriding the 1%) but not actually discussing the subject (the economic effects of the tax cuts and how they effect the national debt.).

      I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this kind of thing exemplifies the REAL issue these days, talking past the other side. How are we going to reach consensus on things without the open exchange of ideas and how do you exchange ideas when someones STARTS a discussion with "you are stupid"?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re: Not That Big A Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because of how social media is. That person wasnt talking to you. They were talking to an invisible crowd waiting for their views to be reaffirmed

    10. Re: Not That Big A Concern by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      What you just said sounds sort of stupid. Why would anyone with half a brain allow themself to get involved in a "debate" with a person who is pushing an agenda rather than "actually discussing the subject"? Wouldn't you be better served by using your online time to google for meaningful debates on your topic of interest?

      FB is for people who enjoy arguing rather than debating, and who seek "me-too"s who reinforce their sense of righteousness by mirroring their own opinions. It is not a place for reasoned discourse. To borrow a term that Rush Limbaugh introduced to insult his fan base, FB is currently the biggest aggregation of Dittoheads the world has ever seen.

    11. Re:Not That Big A Concern by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Some might posit the is an area between people you want to contact you and people you will shoot if they do.

    12. Re:Not That Big A Concern by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      And I'm not hiding from them either. Just not gonna get all worried about it. There's certain things that concern me, most of 'em emanate from DC, but this ain't one of 'em.

  4. To serve man... by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Now were getting it :) Yummm

    --
    [($)]
  5. Correction to Headline by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Nearly 1 In 10 Americans Think They Have Deleted Their Facebook Account Over Privacy Concerns"

    If nowhere else, all their personal data is safely stored on a secure server in Russia. Besides whatever Facebook actually has available.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Correction to Headline by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      If nowhere else, all their personal data is safely stored on a secure server in Russia.

      I think that you have stated an interesting point right there.

      We don't know where all that data is stored anymore. Facebook doesn't know either.

      Benjamin Franklin wrote:

      "Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead."

      Giving access to a university professor is as giving access to the whole world:

      "Hey, here is a link to all the Facebook data, which will help in your research . . . but please don't give the link to anyone else."

      Oops! Who let the dogs out . . . ?

      The US military tries to promote OPSEC . . . Operations security . . . but they are not always successful. A kiosk owner in Saudi Arabia knew when the invasion of Iraq was going to happen. All the US grunts came in to buy batteries for their devices.

      Folks who know they have seriously valuable data are not on Facebook anyway. So for the rest of the Walmart shoppers, Carl's Jr. eaters and Ford F-150 drivers . . . what do they care . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Correction to Headline by Tsolias · · Score: 1

      stored on a secure server in Russia

      0. request personal data
      1. store personal data
      2. sell personal data
      3. blame russia
      4. ?????
      5. Profit.

    3. Re:Correction to Headline by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      What does FB do when you delete your account? Since they keep shadow accounts on non-users, does it just convert to a shadow account with no discernible effect on your privacy?

  6. Social media itself is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never had a facebook account. I do have an Instagram account, i hope facebook doesnt merge the two platforms as i will have to go back to emailling them

    1. Re:Social media itself is evil by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 2

      Whether the UI is merged or not is completely superfluous, you can be guaranteed that your data from Instagram is used to profile you in much the same way as it is on Facebook and that whilst the data is presented as being separate, if it has not already done so, Facebook will be will be working to amalgamate these systems on the back end which creates a common pool of data on everyone.

  7. "Deleted". LOL by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Deleted". Sure. No, Facebook does not delete anything. There is just a flag that is set that says "don't show this to anyone but Facebook employees." All the data is still there and will never be removed. All your photos, all your facial recognition, your relationships with friends. It's still for sale as it ever was, and if you ever get politically active it will be used against you by our scary intelligence agencies.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:"Deleted". LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Deleted". Sure. No, Facebook does not delete anything. There is just a flag that is set that says "don't show this to anyone but Facebook employees." All the data is still there and will never be removed. All your photos, all your facial recognition, your relationships with friends. It's still for sale as it ever was, and if you ever get politically active it will be used against you by our scary intelligence agencies.

      I hope this is true because it would mean Zuckerburg quite clearly has lied to congress repeatedly across multiple hearings.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
      rm -rf AS32934

    2. Re:"Deleted". LOL by guruevi · · Score: 5, Informative

      No he hasn't, he never claimed that people requesting deletion of their accounts weren't being deleted all he said was "if they fully cancel their account" we will delete the data within 90 days. There is simply no option to delete the account other than sending a lawyer down to Facebook HQ with a judge's order in hand.

      This is Facebook's official position (after you remove all the fluff):
      Some information isn't stored in your account.
      Copies of some material may remain in our database.
      We share this data with our advertisers (de-identified but specific enough to re-identify a person with a modicum of effort).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:"Deleted". LOL by Z80a · · Score: 1

      It's probably a bit more complex than that.
      They delete the data itself, but not the generated data from the data.
      No longer has your name, your picture, your posts, but the ghost is still there, with everything that was guessed out of all your pictures, everything that was guessed out of your posts and so forth, and probably can use those to detect you going in other places with the facebook script.

    4. Re:"Deleted". LOL by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

      Obviously we don't know for sure. But to be fair, Zuckerberg straight up told a senator the other day that when you delete your profile they do delete your data. So either hes lying to them or they do delete it.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/card/f...

  8. I deleted my Facebook account in 2008 by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    about 2 months after I started it. I saw then that it was going to be a disaster, when classmates showed me pictures of other classmates, inebriated, and laying in a puddle of their own vomit. Great stuff to have out there when you're looking for work...

    1. Re:I deleted my Facebook account in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why snapchat was born.

  9. in other news by schematix · · Score: 5, Funny

    90% of men have an 8" penis. Just ask them.

    --
    Scott
    1. Re:in other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      90% of men have an 8" penis. Just ask them.

      How can they live with such small dicks?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:in other news by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      90% of men have an 8" penis. Just ask them.

      How can they live with such small dicks?

      You're assuming we're not talking width

    3. Re:in other news by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      If you pull on it hard enough, you too can achieve this measurement!

      --
      I tend to rant.
    4. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of men have an 8" penis. Just ask them.

      How can they live with such small dicks?

      You're assuming we're not talking width

      That would be 'diameter', methinks.

    5. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No beating around the bush with that comment.

    6. Re:in other news by antdude · · Score: 1

      Some don't even have any! :O

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  10. I did mine earlier by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Kept pissing off trump voting family members

  11. 9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by RhettLivingston · · Score: 5, Informative

    Facebook has about 2.2 billion users of which less than 220 million are American. So 9% of Americans would be about 0.9% of their users. If it is a local phenomenon, then Zuckerberg isn't that far off in saying the company hasn't seen a meaningful drop off in cumulative users.

    1. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You're right, but I wonder how their revenue per customer is clustered. I would expect that, on average, Facebook users in the US and EU have significantly more disposable income than those elsewhere (as I understand it, most people with money in China are using home-grown alternatives to Facebook). If it's a 5% drop in people reachably by their biggest advertisers, then that would be cause for concern. If Facebook stops being the ad platform with the biggest reach and is not a brand that has positive recognition then moving ad budgets elsewhere starts to look like a good idea. I suspect Facebook would struggle if 50% of US advertisers went elsewhere.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they went and surveyed wider than just the USA...
      From the article, the biggest "threat" to FB is unengaged users who would just watch but not post. So the best thing to do, if you are a KoolAider already, is to just sit there and watch and log in a whole lot less. A 1% drop on 2.2 billion may not be much, but maybe it is the first fistful of snow that falls to start an avalanche.

    3. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      facebook does not have 2.2 billion "users". they have 2.2 billion **accounts**, many of which are bots, spammers, scammers, crooks, government, corporate or branding accounts.

    4. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Since they specifically state "Americans", which almost certainly actually means "USians" rather than the entire continent or US/Canada, probably not. I'm not so sure you could extrapolate out very easily though, since while people in Europe are generally a lot more aware of their privacy and would probably head for the exits in even greater numbers, there are plenty of other areas where lack of privacy is just a fact of life and this could be seen as just more of the same. It also depends on usage patterns; if that 1% of global users are biased towards users that view the most ads, then that could well have a much larger impact on the bottom line than if 10% of global users who barely use Facebook at all were to stop doing so.

      Truth will out though. Facebook's next quarterly earnings statement is due after market cloe on the 25th April, which is probably not going to suffer from any appreciable impact from the Cambridge Analytica fallout, so the one after that - around the tail end of July - should be quite enlightening.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    5. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by houghi · · Score: 1

      That is comparing apples and oranges. Either you compare the Americans leaving to the total of the Americans that have FP, or you compare all people leaving to all of FB.

      As we do not have the number of all people leaving, you can only compare it to the American numbers. Because; for all we know; the number of 9% is low compared to the rest of the world. Or the rest f the world started signing up like crazy.

      What Zuckerberg says is irrelevant. We have no idea what "meaningful" means. Could be that for him that would be 1% or 99%. We can just see that he says there is a drop and he thinks that is not a meaningful one. He is also not disputing the number.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I guess Zuck lawyers could make that argument to the SEC, but the SEC is less inclined to accept baloney than the Senate. Yes, Zuck statements indicating health of Facebook can be addressed by stockholders. I think he is lying. Or he is using "logic" such as yours which is to say he is being dishonest. If Facebook loses the US market then it will lose almost everything...except its huge blackmail archive.

    7. Re:9% of Americans less than 1% of accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a local phenomenon

      I have no data as to whether this is widespread or not, but I do know of some users in Europe quitting Facebook over this.

  12. No Facebook account to delete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And some few of us were smart enough to not jump on FBs bandwagon/death train because we didn't want to let the world into our lives on such a massive scale. And we were mocked.

    To borrow a line, who's crying now?

  13. Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Serious question: Why are there no competitors to Facebook? Even if they charged a few bucks a month, you would think that there would have at least been some entrepreneurs who would have made a go at competing in that marketplace. Why hasn't Google taken the social thing more seriously and tried to make Google Plus more of a thing. You got the sense that their heart was never really in it.

    Some of you guys are developers, so what's the story? Is there some technical hurdle that prevents anyone from going up against the Zuck? You'd think this would be a perfect time to take a run at him.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There are, you just don't know they exist or they aren't targeted at your social group or country. Facebook is just the more pervasive one but if you'd live in Asia, you probably wouldn't be on Facebook.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There are, you just don't know they exist or they aren't targeted at your social group or country. Facebook is just the more pervasive one but if you'd live in Asia, you probably wouldn't be on Facebook.

      OK, so there are competitors overseas, so why not in the US?

      You would think one of the Asian social media sites would try to adapt their product for the US market. Or something. I'm still not getting why there isn't an alternative. Does Facebook have the idea locked down via intellectual property?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You would think one of the Asian social media sites would try to adapt their product for the US market.

      They have. For instance, you can download WeChat in English. I use it almost everyday. It works fine. I use it to communicate with friends in China, but also to communicate with Chinese Americans, who almost all have the app on their phones. It has over a million users in America, although that is a small fraction of the billion total WeChat users.

    4. Re: Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by sanf780 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is a critical mass on that Facebokok that makes it hard for users too migrate. It is not social if there is no other people around, is it? It reminds me of some bloggers trying Google ecosystem of Apps for one week and then complaining that friends and relatives did not even want to try Hangouts, Duo or Allo. As such, they could not give an opinion on the tools.

      I liked the idea of Google Plus, I liked how circles work, I liked how you did not give a perpetual license to anobody for anything you upload. However, nobody else does. And Facebook will be popular as long as companies use it as a channel with their users: comic shops having updates on Facebook only (treat Facebook as blog), Tinder using your Facebook profile, games publishing on your wall, contests run on Facebook only, Slashdot allowing to login with your Facebook account, etc

    5. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Network effects. As Google learned, the service provided by Facebook has almost no value. The fact that other people are using the same service is the sole reason that Facebook seems useful. Imagine trying to start a new phone network now, if you weren't allowed to connect to the existing one. Think you'd get many users?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Zuckerberg, not Zuckerman. You shameless fucktard.

    7. Re: Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by RealityGone · · Score: 0

      I preferred the layout of Google+ as well. Responsive design and not filled with useless white space. But nobody used it so there was no point. Even though everyone I know has an Android phone and thus as a Google/G+ account they just never used G+ for anything. It has nothing to do with technical capabilities or features. If everyone doesn't move en-mass to a new platform there just simply won't be the momentum to keep it going.

    8. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Serious question: Why are there no competitors to Facebook? Even if they charged a few bucks a month,

      No, stop. If they charged even one cent per month, statistically nobody would use it because of the hassle.

      Some of you guys are developers, so what's the story? Is there some technical hurdle that prevents anyone from going up against the Zuck? You'd think this would be a perfect time to take a run at him.

      The problem is not technical, it is social. You can't get people to use the second most popular thing in significant numbers, let alone the third, fourth, etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OK, so there are competitors overseas, so why not in the US?

      There's a competitor in China because China. There was a competitor in Brazil because Brazilians conquered Orkut, but then they shut it down because only Brazilians were using it. What other countries have competitors to Facebook?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, stop. If they charged even one cent per month, statistically nobody would use it because of the hassle.

      WhatsApp grew to a few hundred million users charging $1/year. They were free for the first year, but most people were happy to pay after that. $1/year actually buys a surprising amount of hosting if you're buying in bulk. Cloud storage is now about $2-4/TB/month, so that's about 3GB/user of storage (more for content that hasn't changed for ages) and transfer costs on top of that are negligible for most users.

      I think you underestimate the number of people willing to make in-app purchases. You and I may only install apps from F-droid, but most people give their credit card details to either Apple or Google immediately after turning on a new phone and have a mechanism set up to pay small amounts to app developers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the actual value of Facebook is its contribution to Total Information Awareness. The money is from the gov and I now suspect other governments. Google has its angle that way as well as does Amazon and any other huge data mine. The phone company can say where you are and what you talk about. Google can say what you are thinking about. Amazon can say what you buy. But Facebook has your confessions. Google would have to get a large self confession market penetration before they could actually compete in TIA terms with Facebook. Besides somewhere in the sick minds of our American Stasi leaders, the division of resources between several companies is desirable as the greatest power comes from access to all of these resources together. Wouldn't want the hired help taking over the government.

    12. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's Zuckerberg, not Zuckerman. You shameless fucktard.

      https://news.vice.com/en_us/ar...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by guruevi · · Score: 1
      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:Mr Zuckerman, are you a monopoly? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      https://makeawebsitehub.com/so... [makeawebsitehub.com]

      My Blogger? Really?

      The only thing even within shooting distance of Facebook in that image is Google Plus, which got left to die on the vine (get it? die on the vine?)

      I still think that with all the shit Facebook is going through right now and the general sense of dislike/unease with the platform, that someone would take a run at it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. It's time to pay for social media by realpeopleio · · Score: 1

    Two big problems with free services on social media platforms: 1) the platform is incentivized to maximum ad impressions and keep you hooked, and 2) they are incentivized to sell user data to third parties. There's a mis-alignment between the user and the platform. No matter what the platform says, the advertisers always seem to take precedence over the users. We need social media platforms that simply charge for the service and are not incentivized to sell your data or maximize ad impressions. When the platform doesn't have incentive to violate privacy, there's much less of a risk of it happening. Rather than rely on promises or good intention, let's use different business models to align users and platforms. But free platforms might lose a lot of money if they switch to paid because with a paid platform, the most the platform can make is what they charge the user. With ads and selling user data the amount has no limit. And since each user has different habits and usage, some users make a platform a lot of money because they have high engagement, and some make the platform only a little. Switching to paid means that revenue from high-engagement users will be truncated, and low-engagement users may not pay at all thus losing revenue from them. And most social media companies take VC funding in order to grow and those VCs expect a high return. That high return is going to come through maximizing ad impressions and selling user data. Facebook has a market cap of somewhere around half a trillion dollars. Do you think they could get anywhere near that by charging people a few bucks a months? People need to take their privacy and attention back and support platforms that flat out charge the user. RealPeople.io (https://realpeople.io) does that and has no ads, no third-party access to your data unless required by law, no bots, no AI controlling what you see, no big investors demanding a Hugh return. The business model aligns with what users want.

    1. Re:It's time to pay for social media by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Three more very important things:

      First, like email, it needs to support federation. If there is a single provider, then it's still a data-mining goldmine. We've seen from Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp that strong privacy policies can be eroded after a takeover and users don't like to leave the network that everyone else is on. That's less of a danger if there are hundreds of interoperable providers. Don't like new GMail policies? Move to Hotmail, Fastmail, Yahoo Mail, or one of a few hundred other providers, or host your own mail server. Don't like a new realpeople.io policy? Move to a completely different network and have no way of communicating with your existing contacts.

      Second, it needs data and identity portability. A user needs to be able to decide at any time that they don't like their current provider and move elsewhere. With email, if I own a domain I can just point it at another provider. Moving social network providers needs to be this easy.

      Finally, it needs well-documented protocols. For email, we have multiple implementations of the client and server parts of the system. A social network that isn't backed by a huge company with bottomless pockets needs people to be able to write new versions of the back-end that meet specific needs. It needs people to be able to write custom clients that expose the data (or some interesting subset of the data) in new ways.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:It's time to pay for social media by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Three more very important things:

      First, like email, it needs to support federation.[...]Second, it needs data and identity portability.[...] Finally, it needs well-documented protocols.

      Usenet. The system you're referring to is Usenet. It's federated, it has data and identity portability, and NNTP is a well documented protocol.

      However, you'll note that the number of currently active Usenet participants is a rounding error compared to Facebook. There are a few problems that a social network meeting the three listed critera suffer from. First, the obvious one, is spam. E-mail battles with it with the use of reputation and blacklists, which are retained by Spamhaus and Google and Barracuda, and if you have companies in charge of blacklists, for all practical purposes we're all the way back to tools of censorship.

      Next, someone needs to be willing to handle the data. Astraweb and Highwinds do it for peanuts, but it's still more than $0; whether users would be willing to pay even Astraweb prices for social media access is debatable. Moreover, some of the core tenets of social networking, including 'liking' or 'upvoting', need to be tracked by the centralized authority, lest we leave it up to the users to decide how many upvotes their post has...Finally, decentralized social networking means it's super difficult to allow or block individuals, and trying to make sure media posts like pictures and videos are replicated in relative realtime is not the easiest thing to make happen. Retroshare has these this to a limited extent, media sharing is closer to a download paradigm than an album paradigm, and a 'blocked' user can easily evade a block by spinning up a new profile.

      On the topic of Retroshare, its super-decentralized nature means that it requires port forwarding to get any meaningful level of network effects. In addition, the forums are a complete dumpster fire of content many would deem offensive, like actually-anti-semitic rants, bomb creation instructions, graphic descriptions of non-consensual sexual acts...and no meaningful way to filter any of it.

      You and I, we want freedom. Most people seem to prefer content they like, easily accessible. After all, when was the last time you had a personal, friendly discussion via e-mail? 99.999999% of e-mail now are either advertisements, account credentials, billing statements, or business correspondence.

    3. Re:It's time to pay for social media by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Usenet. The system you're referring to is Usenet. It's federated, it has data and identity portability, and NNTP is a well documented protocol.

      Not Usenet. Usenet doesn't have any notion of identity and doesn't have any form of authentication. The federation mechanism doesn't provide any mechanism for attestation of original identity, so it is trivial to forge. It doesn't have any form of restricted sharing other than creating a private group (which is then not federated and so everyone must be using the same server to use it). It also doesn't provide any standard mechanism for sharing things that are not 7-bit ASCII, though there are lots of non-standard (incompatible) extensions for sharing binaries.

      Also, having implemented an NNTP client, I can say with some confidence that it is a truly horrible protocol that deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue... by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean seriously, is it a huge surprise that invasion of privacy is a concern on Facebook. That's the whole point of the site, sharing private moments with the public or with their "friends".

    I think the main issue with this whole thing is that even after the the Cambridge Analytica disclosures, the general public remains uneducated. They don't understand how Cambridge Analytica acquired their data, many are under the allusion that representatives of Facebook made a specific deal.

    In truth the data was acquired by means any one of us could use without doing any kind of deal with Facebook, other than agreeing to the TOC for their graph API. And after that it's simply a matter of duping fools into granting your Facebook apps access to their private data. e.g. fill out this personality quiz, see what you look like as someone from the opposite sex..... the fool goes click, click, click.... not reading any the parts about ...oh and in exchange for this gimmick you agree to give us access to EVERYTHING we can possibly get our hands on through your Facebook account.

    It reminds me of the late 90s when people just discovered there possibility of trojans and malware on the internet. Same old same old, idiots and technology... it gets messy.

  16. Maybe I should sign up for a Facebook account ... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    just so I can delete it and join the crowd. Seriously I'm glad I never signed up but I'm sure they still have a lot of data on me anyway.

  17. As if that will do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having an account is just one of multiple vectors that a company like Facebook uses to track and profile you. The bit about the "Facebook pixel" must have sailed clean over Joe/Jane Sixpack's head.

  18. In other words.. by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    90% of Americans do not give a single fuck about it.

    1. Re:In other words.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      10% is already way more than I'd have expected.

      Remember: It's 10% of those that didn't already know it in the first place. 10% of Americans CAN actually get smarter when facing evidence that they were stupid.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Inertia, primarily by RanceJustice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no real technical hurdle that is keeping others from being a "real" competitor for Facebook. There have been those who have tried, but they just haven't been successful "enough". There are lots of alternate social networks out there, even other Facebook style proprietary ones - some are for general use and some are for one particular group of people or another. LinkedIn of course is supposed to be a "serious professional networking" social network, but we see how it becomes headhunters, ads, fakes, and other nonsense. Google Plus had a chance to dethrone Facebook but they made some foolish decisions at a crucial point in time etc.

    Facebook exists where it does more or less for two reasons. Money, and "first-ish mover momentum". They have an obscene amount of money thanks to generally unscrupulous and monopolistic decisions (big data sales, advertising, etc) and because of that became one of the de-facto ways people communicate. Consider that not that long ago many businesses would have personal web pages and if you needed to sign up with them, you'd send your email. Now they all have Facebook pages and Twitter handles, and you need to use those media to be able to communicate with them with any degree of haste . Hell, I can remember about the time signing up for promotions even for video games and the like no longer took an email address (because that's too easy to make a throwaway) but instead required you to like/friend them on Facebook + Retweet/Friend them on Twitter etc. Then these companies install social media managers to deal with this presence! Thanks to Facebook (and to some extent, Twitter in a kind of duopoly) they have centralized lots of the communication on the Internet - a major problem. This brings me to the second, major reason that Facebook competitors have'nt been ultra successful - Inertia.

    People stay and use Facebook (and Twitter, and Instagram/WhatsApp..owned by Facebook by the way) because their friends and relatives do. These sites have taken such deep root in our communication that to break away from them takes a sort of social escape velocity - you have to be the kind of person who 1) knows of other alternatives 2) has reason to use them 3) and is willing to switch, despite the fact that others might not. Facebook became the dominant major social network in succession to MySpace as it was dying off, which in turn arose when Friendster sort of prototyped the whole thing for the average person. Now its the place people go to make sure the know about all their friends and relatives....but they also stay to do things like play games, check out "apps" (including that cool personality test..), and read the news which they then not only absorb with little question to the source, but forward the message to everyone. Getting people to give up on the social network where their old friends, new friends, family members, those in their political "bubble" etc... exist, takes real momentum.

    Hopefully this national spotlight on the problems of Facebook (and I hope, Twitter. Honestly, the President of the United States should not be making proclamations or communicating with the electorate primarily through a proprietary, centralized, corporate medium) will combine with a number of other sociological phenomena (such as Facebook perhaps finally not being "cool" with the younger crowd as their parents are on it, so they'll consider switching to the next thing etc) to power an exodus. The great thing is that we already have several worthwhile alternatives; open source, privacy-and-security-focused, often federated alternatives. Such as...

    https://diasporafoundation.org... - Diaspora: Full featured, open source and federated. Not a bad transition for Facebook users
    https://friendi.ca/ - Friendica - Evolving and interoperating with most other open social networks here, federated. Lots of plugins and even those to let it work with proprieta

    1. Re:Inertia, primarily by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0
      It's bad that Twitter controls the platform, for sure. Their CEO just retweeted this this article and commented "Great read".

      The next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it.

      The best way to understand politics in America today is to reframe it as closer to civil war.

      Is it any wonder that Twitter bans so many conservatives? Their CEO considers them as enemies!

      It's good that Trump has a way to bypass the media and talk directly to the people, though. Th media abuses their gatekeeper position to manipulate the news in a direction favorable for their political goals. It's so harmful to democracy to do that. I can't even believe we have a media with political goals, but here we are. :(

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Inertia, primarily by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are always the enemies of progress, if only by definition of their given name.

      The article he retweeted IS a great read, and the majority of the country is anxiously awaiting the day its points become reality.

    3. Re:Inertia, primarily by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Majority? America is a center-right country, always has been. The Left has seized the megaphone, and makes itself look bigger than it is. By considering your countrymen as enemies, you are wholeheartedly serving Putin's plan. You might as well sign up for payment, because doing that kind of job for free is for suckers.

      There was a study that showed that Americans trust each other a lot more than Russians trust each other and that impedes Russian growth. The study is the basis for the Russian strategy now -- cripple the US by making them distrust each other as much as Russians do. It's a really good strategy. It'll work, and you're helping them. Good job, Ivan.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Inertia, primarily by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

      Your mistake was assuming my "majority" was about hard left liberals. Yes, the majority is "in the middle," though I'd argue more of them are slight left than slight right. The enemies of any democracy are those unwilling to compromise.

      I'll go ahead and guess you didn't read the article. The important points are that the fall of hard conservatism has happened in this countries history, and the stage is set for it to happen again. It's a heartening article for anyone in the middle, left or right, who's tired of seeing progress and common-sense policy-making thwarted by politicians living in the past, while writing laws to ensure they and theirs stay richer than god.

      A reckoning is coming, I assure you.

    5. Re:Inertia, primarily by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Common sense policy making? Like safe spaces and microaggressions? Like caving people's skulls in with bike locks? When you think injecting cattle with hormones is evil, but injecting kids with hormones to arrest their puberty is just fine?

      Conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives donâ(TM)t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the worldâ(TM)s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressiveâ(TM)s latest demands and says, "I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think youâ(TM)ve overlooked the following..." In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, "I have *no idea* why you would believe that. Youâ(TM)re probably a racist."

      Keep up the good work, Ivan. Keep us fighting with one another, at each other's throats. Putin is cheering for you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Inertia, primarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great thing is that we already have several worthwhile alternatives; open source, privacy-and-security-focused, often federated alternatives. Such as...

      https://diasporafoundation.org... - Diaspora: Full featured, open source and federated. Not a bad transition for Facebook users
      https://friendi.ca/ - Friendica - Evolving and interoperating with most other open social networks here, federated. Lots of plugins and even those to let it work with proprietary networks too
      https://gnu.io/social/ - GNUSocial: : Microblogging alternative to Twitter. Federated, open source etc . Most of the "quitter" instances are based on GNUSocial.
      https://joinmastodon.org/ - Mastodon : Another microblogging alternative to Twitter. Also interoperates with GNUSocial so those registered on one can follow/post on instances of the other. UI and implementation makes it really really easy to switch from Twitter.
      http://retroshare.net/ - Retroshare is an open source, private, invite only social network. This is the kind of thing people can use to share pictures with their friends/family, make plans, and do "facebook stuff", without anyone else being able to spy on them

      There are some other alternatives out there too (BuddyCloud, etc) but the above are some of the best.

      You forgot to mention that you can even start YOUR OWN social network site with open platforms. Two years ago I setup a social network for the dearest Brazilian football team fans. We got to get 70,000 users [I'm not saying that bots weren't involved] on the first two days! We pulled the plug because of conservative members of the team's board. Not being technically savvy they did not believe it would be a success [in spite of all evidence to the contrary].

      Captcha: member

    7. Re:Inertia, primarily by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

      Common sense policy making? Like safe spaces and microaggressions? Like caving people's skulls in with bike locks? When you think injecting cattle with hormones is evil, but injecting kids with hormones to arrest their puberty is just fine?

      And then your counter-response is to roll out the same, tired bullshit stereotypes every other asswipe on the right does. Is this the part where I call you Hitler, racist, or too stupid to understand modern science? Are you a flat-earther, member of the KKK, or a lobbyist for "big oil?"

      There's a high probability you're somewhere in the middle, like the majority of Americans. Left-leaning or right, you just want what's best for you and yours. You want the freedom to make your own choices about your life, and you want to be able to protect yourself from threats, both foreign and domestic. You probably don't care much about where we land on abortion, marijuana, or even gun laws, as long as you're free to make your own decisions about each, as a non-criminal, law-abiding citizen.

      Instead, when you dive into the same rhetoric where everyone left of your viewpoint is treated as if they were Antifa, PETA, or a "Social Justice Warrior," you're just as guilty as the same assholes who would call you an Alt-Right, racist Nazi.

      Keep up the good work, Svetlana.

    8. Re:Inertia, primarily by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Uhh...did you not just endorse a call for civil war in America? Jesus Christ. You need to unite with us against Putin, not do his goddamned work for him!

      In his remarkable book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, scholar Jonathan Haidt recalls a telling experiment. He and his colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham sought to discover how well conservative and what Haidt terms 'liberal' (ie: progressive) students understood one another by having them answer moral questions as they thought their political opponents would answer them. "The results were clear and consistent," remarks Haidt. "In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals." Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don't hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don't understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the 'conservative advantage,' and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don't understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don't understand.

      Johnathan Haidt's research has so far uncovered six evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception, subconscious intuitive understanding, and conscious reasoning. He calls them moral foundations. He ALSO finds that moral foundations are the essential building blocks of human society. In his 2008 TED Talk "The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives" he explains that human society is possible through the use of "all the tools in the toolbox." It's no coincidence that evolution pre-wired them into our brains.

      Haidt finds that conservatives use all of them but liberals use about half of them, and of that half mostly just one. There's no conservative moral foundation that is not also a liberal one, but half of the conservative foundations are external to, and inaccessible by, liberal cognition.

      When half of the evolved psychological mechanisms of social perception and understanding are essentially unavailable to one's subconscious intuitions and conscious reasoning one is left with no cognitive alternative for understanding people who think differently but to conclude that they're afflicted with some sort of mental dysfunction.

      A conversation about social issues between a liberal and a conservative is like a conversation about rainbows between a color blind person and a fully sighted one in which the color blind liberal "knows" that the sighted conservative is an extremist nut case because he sees moral colors that "everybody knows" are just not there, and conservative think liberals are misinformed because they DON'T see moral colors that everybody knows ARE there.

      R. R. Reno concluded his review of The Righteous Mind in the magazine First Things as follows:

      "Thus the profound problem we face. Liberalism is blind in one eye, yet it insists on the superiority of its vision and its supreme right to rule. It cannot see half the things a governing philosophy must see, and claims that those who see both halves are thereby unqualified to govern."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Inertia, primarily by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

      All horseshit. You completely misunderstand and misrepresent the results Johnathan Haidt's studies.

      Uhh...did you not just endorse a call for civil war in America?

      I did not. More evidence you didn't RTFA.

  20. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    many are under the allusion that representatives of Facebook made a specific deal.

    What are you illuding to?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. the joke's on them, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they only "deactivate" an account and its related content, they don't actually delete (as in scrub from all their servers and backups) any of it, nor can they do anything about various archives and caches that preserve content even when it 'goes away'.

  22. That ship sailed long ago... by Nexion · · Score: 1

    I deleted my accounts long ago. There is simply nothing to be had as being a member of a creepy community.

    Why re YOU still THERE?

    Jesus, it is like 2018 and you are still too stupid to defend your privacy?!?!?!

    Seriously... we should sell you like a slave. You certainly are dumb enough, and it seems you are so stupid as to like it.

    YOU are global warming. So stupid you aren't worth humanity's time, but we can't kill you so you are the herpes of global warming. Gah, I loathe liberals. If we got rid of you and people like you we might solve the cloud above LA.

    1. Re:That ship sailed long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that escalated quickly

    2. Re:That ship sailed long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That escalated slowly, I think. We have known that Facebook engages in these kinds of practices for years, yet we have been perfectly content ignoring it all

  23. The think they deleted by mocm · · Score: 1

    their account, but FB probably keeps a backup of their data just to be save if they decide ti come back ;)

    --
    ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
  24. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Zuck! Zuck sucks! He blows ducks!

  25. Get a "Facebook Likes transplant" by mrwireless · · Score: 1

    Instead of deleting your account you could also play with how algorithms perceive you. For example, if you are gay or depressed you could copy the Facebook likes of straight and upbeat people. Small hacks like this would influence how the algorithms of databrokers categorise you.

    That matters, because algorithmic background checks are everywhere now.

    This week I launched a website for this: https://www.cloakingcompany.co... (not a real company, it's meant as an awareness project, but it actually works)

  26. An alternative to deleting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have nothing but a photo of yourself, and a link to any other page or resource you have.

    If an actual person looks for you personally on Facebook, is that most likely a) someone you want to be found by, b) someone you don't want to be found by? I'd say alternative a) usually.

    1. Re:An alternative to deleting by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And then there's the possibility that some asshole who wants to slander you creates a fake page in your name and offers some photoshopped pics of you showing off your bizarre sexual fetishes if you don't already control the FB-page with your name.

      Even more important if you have a globally unique name.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:An alternative to deleting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should probably look up the word slander. It has a specific legal meaning.

  27. How about the others? by plumwhite23091 · · Score: 0

    Of course, they don't give a **** about it.

    --
    WilliamReview.com
  28. Motivation by barcarolle · · Score: 2

    My concern is that these deletions are happening not out of a genuine concern for user privacy on the Internet, but rather as yet another outlet for the culture of social political, and cultural outrage upon which many (if not most or all) are continuing to draw sustenance. That would not be constructive.

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

      I am worried that it is only Democrats who are deleting Facebook. Which will just make it seem like the conservative trolls are a bigger part of society and actually the majority. It is the perfect right-wing strategy to take over the narrative of what people think on-line. If there is a debate on some forum and it is 1 troll vs 3 people using facts, not much changes. But, if it is 1 troll vs 30 people, the troll gets down-voted or out commented. And it makes people realize that the trolls are a very small percentage of the people out there.

    2. Re:Motivation by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      If it damages Facebook's business model to the extent that they go out of business, then that is a GOOD thing.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  29. But how many bots? by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    I am willing to wager a lot of "users" on facebook are not human at all.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:But how many bots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reptilians?

    2. Re:But how many bots? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Trump supporters.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:But how many bots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump supporters.

      Ha ha. But seriously, we need to stop with the name calling.

      Trump supporters are human too. Naive, exploited & misguided, but human.

      (Dang, even as an AC this comment will be tracked back to me & I'll be branded as a ("damn") liberal. Oh noes!)

  30. Moved to where ? by DrYak · · Score: 1

    And probably the vast majority moved to Instagram or WhatsApp as their new center of social interaction~
    Zuckerberg reported to say "meh" in interviews~

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Moved to where ? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      WhatsApp is owned by facebook ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Moved to where ? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      which would be why zukerberg says "meh". The Facebook platform may lose a user, but Facebook the company hasn't lost a user.

    3. Re:Moved to where ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a mighty fine whoosh you have there, is that the new 2018 model?

  31. How many really use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know plenty of people who have a Facebook account but hardly use it. I think maybe the privacy concerns just pushed many to simply delete their account they never used anyway. I have not resorted to deleting my Facebook account, but I had concluded a while ago that Facebook and Zuckerberg could never be trusted to keep my information secured. Zuckerberg to me is just doing what any CEO would do with so much data. He sells it to benefit Facebook.

  32. 1 in 10 quit... by sad_ · · Score: 1

    just to rejoin a few weeks/months later.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  33. A good start, but . . . by Subm · · Score: 1

    A good start, but still 91% left.

  34. we should be able to sue because we can't del FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can only deactivate accounts. I deleted photos, posts, friends, but could not delete my account. Only disable it. Why can it only be deleted if someone says were are dead ? Bullshit. I think this is a class action suit waiting to happen. It keeps me up at night. That's pain and suffering..
    the truth is this is how social media makes money. It sells demographic information to marketers, also creates demographic information for political parties. Police can use public information to see who is associated with who. The best we can do to destroy this information is write scripts that will create bogus social accounts, post bogus information, draw in bogus friends... with enough false postings the data that was collected would be garbage.

    Does Google Maps/Places haunt you with questions about a location ? Instead of deactivating I always give a bogus answer. If a place is great I say it was horrible, if a place was horrible I say it was awesome and give it 5 starts.

    Eventually I'm going to dump my smartphone. My Moto Z Force 2 is the last smart phone I'll get. After that.. it's going to be a dumb flip phone, no gps.
    maybe a dumb flip phone burner phone.

  35. Fuck the Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the Zuck! https://www.facebook.com/FukTheZuck/

  36. Survey says by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

    Seems more likely that 1 in 10 people *claimed* to have deleted their facebook account, regardless of if they took any action at all, or if such action had any useful effect whatsoever.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  37. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's unfortunate that so many people in tech adopt such an easy, condescending attitude. People are not idiots. Mostly they just assume that common decency and laws prevent companies like Facebook and Google from selling them down the river. It needs to be recognized that companies like Facebook and Google go to great lengths to support that misconception by hiding the mechanics of their spying.

    I just got a "party invitation" from punchbowl.com and asked the sender to please not give out my email address. She doesn't understand and thinks I'm just cranky. The email was bounced through a tracking domain and contained 29 (!) hidden web bugs, plus one extra web bug at the end. But it's difficult to explain that kind of thing to people. They see a festive email with pictures of party balloons. Should they understand? Should people be required to know HTML and MIME format before they can have an email account? Obviously not. Calling them idiots is just an arrogant, cheap shot.

  38. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spoken like a true moron.. I bet you're a Trump supporter too.

  39. Exactly, I deleted mine and it's still there by Hasaf · · Score: 1

    Years ago I deleted my Facebook account. I was tired of being "tagged" in pictures that I had little control over. What I found is that it isn't possible to delete myself from Facebook. The US needs German style laws that allow a person to to be "forgotten" by digital services.

    I suspect that future generations will see this era of unregulated digital sharing and use it as an example of how a pattern of foolishness can spread across the entire world.

    1. Re:Exactly, I deleted mine and it's still there by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by that? Where you expecting Facebook to delete other people's pictures that had you tagged in them and delete every time someone mentioned your name?

      As far as people deleting their profiles... they get 10 days to change their minds so we'll see. And I wouldn't be surprised if allot of those 1 and 10 are just saying they did because they didn't want to look stupid on a survey.

      That said, apparently allot of Hillary supporters are easily swayed by facebook posts if that was enough to make them vote Trump or not vote at all.

    2. Re:Exactly, I deleted mine and it's still there by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      Facebook picture tags link to an existing Facebook user. Following that link led to a face book user (me) that had requested user deletion years ago. When a person has deleted their account, it should not be possible to view their page years later.

      Further, I later needed to use facebook to access a company service page. I simply loogged into the account that I had requested to be closed years before. Very simply, the account was never closed even though I had requested it closed and deleted.

      As far as Hillary, and I have no idea why people feel it necessary to drag her into the most unrelated discussions, I doubt that many of her supporters were swayed to trump. It is more likely that the undecideds, and those who are generally too lazy to vote at all, were more motivated,than the otherwise would have been, to vote against her due to a number of mechanisms, fake news on Facebook being one of them.

    3. Re:Exactly, I deleted mine and it's still there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook has always differentiated between "disabling" your account, which is do-able, and "deleting" your account, which is either impossible or nearly impossible. Disabling your account just makes your account dormant, but deletes nothing, and you can come back (even years later like you did) and everything is still there. Supposedly you can actually delete your account if you search around enough to figure out how (they certainly don't make it easy to find in their menus). Whether they actually delete your account and all your information if you find your way to the magic command like they say they do, or whether they just make it inaccessible (to you, not to them) is an entirely different question.

  40. Incorrect article title ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Nearly 1 In 10 Americans Have Deleted Their Facebook Account

    Think that should read "Nearly 1 In 10 Americans Have Temporarily Set The "Active" Flag On Their Facebook Account To False."

    As any ful kno once they've got the data you can't ever delete it !

  41. Re:Correction to correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benjamin Franklin wrote:

    "Three may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead."

    and some song writer wrote "2 out of 3 ain't bad"

  42. Douglas Adams would be proud! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    This reported number doesn't pass my smell test, either.

    With such a precipitous drop in users, you'd probably hear the entire fabric of the universe groaning and throwing off glowing metallic divots as it passed through some kind of nearly impenetrable Wrong Stuff barrier.

    If true, this story would already be the Mount Krakatoa of the social media era.

    Maxwell Smart: Would you believe "1 in 10 are thinking about maybe deleting their account"?

    Sir, you win the "Douglas Adams" award for today.

  43. Just stop using them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop using them for anything non-public.
    It is also a good idea to stop oversharing. Don't be like wiggy107.

    Only people have overshared should delete an account.

    I have a few types of facebook/tweet/insta/goog accounts.
    * business
    * family
    * friends
    They are dry since I don't really share. I have a monthly reminder to login to each to see if anything interesting happened. Usually the answer is no. Kid's birthdays just aren't my thing. Real people's lives just aren't all that interesting. Neither is mine, BTW.

  44. Instagram? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    What about Instagram? I bet most Instagram users don't even realize they're using Facebook. So 1 out of 10 Americans didn't really delete their Facebook account if they didn't also delete Instagram. Also, while I understand this is anecdotal, my teenage niece has informed me that Facebook is for old people and her classmates only use Instagram. With all the facial/location recognition software, Instagram may be more invasive than regular Facebook. They were smart to never put their logo on it because most people don't bother to learn about the services they use.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  45. Doing my part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... I deleted my account years ago because I got sick of annoying friends and relatives. I have yet to see a downside. Privacy from marketers and scammers is a nice bonus though.

  46. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    Well my point is Facebook didn't sell them down the river. They sold themselves down the river. Firstly they signed up to Facebook then they signed up to sites and apps affiliated with Cambridge Analytica and granted them access to their Facebook data.

    Although Facebook does bare some responsibility, they created the API/ecosystem on which this occurred. They really should have a vetting process to protect "the idiots" on their platform from the sharks like Cambridge Analytica.

    Currently all you need is a Facebook account and sign up for a developer account then you can just start creating Facebook apps with no vetting process of any kind and then publish this to the general public with Facebook havubg bi review of what the developer is offering Facebook users, and what Facebook data they're attempting to access.

    Facebook should have some sort of system for reviewing apps similar to what Microsoft, Apple and Google have where you submit your app for review, they check it out and then grant you public access if it looks reasonable. e.g a personality quiz that attempts to get facebook users to grant them permission to access everything they have should be getting caught and rejected before any of "the idiots" have a chance to click OK lets go with that one.

  47. I didn't delete my account by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    Because I never had an account to start with (same goes for Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, ad nauseum)

  48. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    Definitely not a trump supporter. I dont think you actually understand what I've said

  49. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is full of those retards who used to send chain emails.

    I abandoned the platform in 2013 for privacy reasons. Shame that not even the Snowden leaks could wake people up to this.

  50. I am the 10% by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I held out for many years without getting a Facebook account, finally gave in a couple years ago and created one to keep track of the people I graduated with in '78, but I deleted my account this April. I look forward to Facebook going the way of MySpace and Yahoo, but that will be a slow, drawn out process, it will probably be another decade before Facebook is totally irrelevant.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  51. 1 in 10 Facebook Users by KevinJohnsrude · · Score: 1

    1 in 10 Facebook Users just realized that social media is not private. XD XD XD

  52. irrelevant may be subjective by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    it will probably be another decade before Facebook is totally irrelevant.

    Yet you keep coming to Slashdot.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  53. Surprise, Facebook has not deleted them by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Facebook has built shadow profiles of people who never even created a facebook page. So if you delete your account, it just gets moved to a very rich shadow account that is all. Anyway the data that has been exfiltrated out of facebook is the proverbial horse that got stolen, while facebook servers are the stables those horses had been at some point in the past.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  54. That's what they think by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    They haven't deleted shit... they've just deactivated them. They're also still going to be tracked via FB API on other websites.

  55. Re:Shows that 1 out of 10 people don't have a clue by chispito · · Score: 1

    That's the whole point of the site, sharing private moments with the public or with their "friends".

    That's the whole point of all social media. Facebook just did it the most effectively and the quickest. Just wait until people realize the Twitter tantrums from their 20s can prevent them from getting jobs in their 30s.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  56. Uhhh, wut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they've deleted their Facebook account. Did they delete the data? Did they opt out of all of Facebook's cross-site pixel tracking? I didn't think so.

  57. You know what else 1 on 10 have done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right according to the latest scientific study that I just made up, 1 in 10 Americans are racist. Also 1 in 10 Americans are sexual criminal. So don't be a racist sex offender. Stick with face book

  58. Title should hav been.. now less trash by trevrox · · Score: 1

    Those who donâ(TM)t know about technology delete Facebook, those who have something to hide delete Facebook.

  59. Losing users by DrYak · · Score: 1

    ..."Oh, snap !" cried the users~~

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]