Slashdot Mirror
How Facebook Could Profit From Zuckerberg's So-Called 'Privacy' Push (washingtonpost.com)
Saturday the Associated Press analyzed Mark Zuckerberg's new vision for Facebook as an encrypted "privacy-focused communications platform."
[C]ritics say the announcement obscures Facebook's deeper motivations: To expand lucrative new commercial services, continue monopolizing the attention of users, develop new data sources to track people and frustrate regulators who might be eyeing a breakup of the social-media behemoth. Facebook "wants to be the operating system of our lives," said Siva Vaidhyanathan, director of media studies at the University of Virginia... Vaidhyanathan said Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication such as email, texting and Apple's iMessage in order to "do everything through a Facebook product."
The end goal could be transform Facebook into a service like the Chinese app WeChat , which has 1.1 billion users and includes the world's most popular person-to-person online payment system... But Zuckerberg said nothing in the Wednesday blog post about reforming privacy practices in its core business, which remains hungry for data. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook was still collecting personal information from apps such as user heart rates and when women ovulate ... Facebook also has trackers that harvest data on people's online behavior on about 30 percent of the world's websites , said Jeremy Tillman of Ghostery, a popular ad-blocker and anti-tracking software.
"When they say they are building a private messaging platform there is nothing in there that suggests they are going to stop their data collection and ad-targeting business model," he said.
The end goal could be transform Facebook into a service like the Chinese app WeChat , which has 1.1 billion users and includes the world's most popular person-to-person online payment system... But Zuckerberg said nothing in the Wednesday blog post about reforming privacy practices in its core business, which remains hungry for data. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook was still collecting personal information from apps such as user heart rates and when women ovulate ... Facebook also has trackers that harvest data on people's online behavior on about 30 percent of the world's websites , said Jeremy Tillman of Ghostery, a popular ad-blocker and anti-tracking software.
"When they say they are building a private messaging platform there is nothing in there that suggests they are going to stop their data collection and ad-targeting business model," he said.
Vs nearly everyone else online at this point. I say screw the government and laws you people want to endlessly pass. If this company wants to make money by using data about people then go ahead. Just fine the shit out of them when they try to take action on that data in an illegal way. It's already illegal to break existing laws protecting people for damn near everything under the sun. I think this is a freedom issue for capitalism and the media is trying to demonize profit making. It's ok for gov to run census questions or SEC to require KYC, AML, everything about your financial past/present/future. FOIA requests are looked at kindly (as they should be). But damn if Facebook knows and profits from the fact you went to get Dunk'n Donuts today. You DO NOT HAVE TO USE FACEBOOK. You do have to use the government and abide by its overreaching terms or else. Facebook included. We are already protected from this big bad meany capital making machine. Now let me know if it comes and shoots your Uncle Harry. I'll support you then. In the meantime if it just knows you like Vanilla powder on your Latte then what the hell. Btw, what is this? Post #501231231 about evils of Facebook? Who's getting paid to hit FB and by whom? (I don't like Facebook but I use it. It's ugly and stupid af but family likes it). Yeah someone mentioned to me previously they were running campaigns to mess with peoples minds. Then fine, get on them about that. Fine the crap out of them. But data collection? No. I am for opensource and open source data collection. I am for freedom of data to flow freely. Sorry. I don't think there should be laws against data collection and I don't think we should have to click Agree to use a fucking cookie on every website. GFYs whoever decided that should be a law.
Facebook doesn't allow you the ability to chronologically organise a message list.
This makes me confused and angry.
I would say more but I must continue the task of arranging my sock drawer in spectral array without delay. Time is important. I have none.
...as long as we are at the other end.
Thanks, but no, thanks. Fuck you, Fakebook.
Too bad Diaspora imploded, eh?
"Possession is 9 points of the law." If Facebook has possession of the data, YOUR data, then the 9 points is on their side. Actually you're lucky if you can claim one point on your side. If you want to take back possession of YOUR own data, you have to prove that the possession should change, and the basic operation of the law is to presume the possessor is in the right.
"Follow the money." Now about the abuse of YOUR personal information. That follows from where the money moves. Facebook wanted to become a valuable company, and the only valuable thing they had was YOUR personal information. Of course they are going to sell it. The only questions are trivial, such as how to repackage YOUR personal information for maximum value and how to disguise the abuse.
I would actually go a bit farther and say that the companies that failed to follow the money hard enough were the same companies that Facebook crushed. The reward for not sufficiently and aggressively abusing YOUR personal information was death. The only real threat to Facebook is some company that figures out better ways to do it. Amazon, that's your cue?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
No privacy. Only closed-source FB client to closed-source FB client. Both with a FB server side channel, no audit by anyone trustworthy, and most of all, a company whose entire busness model is based on abusing said data.
"I can change!", it said! " I *have* changed!". Then Brundlezuck died, torn between what it was at its essence, and what it wanted its needed one to think it was.
Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication
OK, great. Doesn't mean he'll get that.
But he can 'want' all day long.
... we don't need any ... socks!
(Or shoes for that matter.)
Only some shade and a margarita.
Let's arrange girls by skin tone and amount of leftover textile on their body.
And it is worse than the original.
Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.
It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.
If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus , the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.
This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.
And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.
The only way to win is not to play.
If you can afford it ;)
Do you really want Mark Zuckerberg to know when you are ovulating? Creepy.
Dump Facebook.
'Fuck the Zuck'
I'm definitely for not banning anyone from doing anything he likes... but I always add: ...as long as it does not ban anyone else from doing anything he likes!
This is not about FB's rights. It is about FB abusing other people's rights, and that not being welcome in *our* society.
There are two fallacies in your logic, that are both, sadly, ingrained into US employee culture:
1. People are actually *not* free to do as they like! There is no such thing as free will. That's simply not how neural nets like the brain work. There is no "special something". We are the sum of our sensory inputs and a few epigenes and genes. You are free to do as you want, but you are not free to *want* what you want, as Schopenhauer said. Neuropsychology supports this.
2. People do *not* have a choice. Because people *need* to interact socially. Which would not be a problem, if there were still other options. But for more and more things, there just aren't. No FB/WhatsApp/Instagram, and you don't even hear of the plans your friends or important organizations make!
Now you will rightfully ask: But what about the morons who brought it this far?
Well, we're back to fallacy 1 there. And FB just lying and abusing the natural trust of healthy non-abused humans in other humans, to trap people and get them addicted, no matter the consequences. Which is literal psychopathic behavior.
YES, we should have seen Zuck for what he was from the very beginning. But we didn't, and that is actually good, because if we had, we would not have had a healthy social human society, but the psychopathic dog-eat-dog hellhole that is Zuckerberg's world and frankly, American society when watched from a distance. (I know that locally there are still good and decent people, as in an country.)
And here comes the key argument:
YES, everybody has the total right to be a complete psychopathic dick. BUT we also have the right to tell him to GTFO and leave society or be killed with a blunt rock.
- Facebook and Zuck are all about the money. That's not judgmental, it's just what corporations and business owners do: they only care about their pockets and that of shareholders, not morals or ethics.
- Facebook and Zuck have been making out like bandits from dataraping people so far.
So why would they suddenly announce a policy change that's detrimental to an existing, proven business model? Well, here's why:
- People are more and more concerned that Facebook is dataraping them. They don't know how exactly, as most of them are computer idiots, but they're getting the idea that FB might not actually be as customer-oriented as they claim.
- Therefore, Zuck announces FB's new "focus on privacy". What does it mean in actual technical and privacy terms? Nothing. What does it mean in marketing terms? The users' concerns are put to rest for a few months or years, and FB bleed out fewer customers, hence keep collecting data, thereby keeping on making money.
I predict Zuck's annoucemnent is just that - an annoucement. Over time, we'll learn that FB hasn't implemented any of it. But the company will have made extra cash from anesthetized users who might otherwise have fled the platform.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Note the Facebook icon on the bottom of Slashdot's pages. This site is part of the Zuckerborg collective that degrades your privacy. I'm a little surprised to see that on Slashdot.
You, the ads and the NSA.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Retroshare does everything Facebook does, but it requires a friendly Geek to set it up for his family and friends.
MacOS model's not done: Stop IMPERSONATING me lying & proof portfilter err's can't happen in my work https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
HILARIOUS u ADMIT u have a /. acct & STALK me by UNIDENTIFIABLE ac https://hardware.slashdot.org/... - YOU have ISSUES, lunatic.
See subject & that's the "best ya got"? It proves You WISH you were ME (as your POOR imitation = the sincerest form of flattery).
Instead of WASTING your life STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts OR IMPERSONATING me (since you WISH you were me)? Make a Wheel https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di... as I have that gives users more speed/security/reliability & anonymity NATIVELY doing more for less vs. ANY single 'solution' out there!
* LASTLY - the ONLY time you start IMPERSONATING me vs. STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anon posts is WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF "downmodpoints" I can easily NULLIFY by REPOSTING my posts RUNNING YOU DRY of them after you ABUSE them - I must've already, lol!
APK
P.S.=> I know WHY you do it though (out of "butthurt angst", lol): I've BLOWN YOU AWAY so many times under your MANY alter-ego SOCKPUPPET /. accounts FAKENAMES you're out for "revenge" only to have EGG ON YOUR FACE yet again https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... + STILL YET AGAIN, lol https://it.slashdot.org/commen... + https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... ... apk
I think we'd all benefit more from Zuckerbergs Privacy Bush.
Hearing Zuckerberg talk about privacy is like hearing a fat person talking about their diet.
From the summary: aidhyanathan said Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication such as email, texting and Apple's iMessage in order to "do everything through a Facebook product."
I'd rather stop using the Internet entirely and forget it ever existed than have to use any Facebook-owned service. Fuck that shit.
I didn't get my home given to me. It was purchased by me & not from my Mom either. Quit stalking me & lying for your own sake @ least.
APK
P.S.=> & GROW UP... apk