Yes, of course they won't be able to peer into HTTPS/TLS data streams, but they'll get *everything else*. All non-encrypted traffic, all DNS lookups, all app traffic, etc.
It's still a goldmine for them. And should be a resounding, "HELL NO" for the consumer.
You'd have to be absolutely mental to VPN all your traffic through Facebook's servers. They have direct access to all your traffic as it leaves their VPN concentrator. Their wet dream.
People really need to educate themselves about how VPNs work, what they are and aren't good for.
Secure, encrypted traffic between two endpoints? GOOD! Secure, encrypted traffic between yourself and an actor with unknown motives who by default has to decrypt it before sending it on it's way to the Internet? DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD!
I think a course about the ethics of AI is a great idea. But aren't Ethics and Critical Thinking classes already requirements? They were when I was at University, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
If they aren't fundamental requirements at every college, the system has failed.
Channels about chemistry, logical thinking, social discourse, physics, etc. are demonetized at the drop of a hat, but we have Pewdiepie, menstrual blood "art" and pop stars wearing strap-on dildoes at the top.
Social media is not about liberal notions like free speech, education, science. It's about doing everything possible to keep eyes focused on the stream of shit for as long as possible. The byproduct is the algorithms that select the carefully crafted stream of diarrhea ensure everyone stays in their same lane, comfort bubble.
Discourse, critical thinking are the backbone of western societies. We're in trouble.
This is trivial compared to the current fad of open plan offices. I used to revile my cubicle...until I got a taste of an open plan environment. Distraction hell.
What exactly is your definition of "torture"? There is a large body of evidence that shows solitary confinement causes severe psychological damage. Prisons are beginning to abolish it because it does not actually improve anything; rather, it literally drives people crazy.
More talk of "consequences" for "misbehavior" with absolutely clarity about what that means. Just more ass-covering maneuvers by an Alphabet company that allow it to do whatever it wants with absolutely zero explanation.
Given Google's ideological track record both online and in the workplace, there is no reason whatsoever to believe this will be good for the content creator or the free exchange of ideas in general.
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
I'm starting to think 1984, Brave New World got one critical idea wrong - that in the future, Gov'ts would wield power to control and rewrite information. The reality is showing corporations are the behemoth we should be every bit as wary of. This is exactly what worshipping at the alter of business as the ultimate savior gets you.
1) Pedantic response 2) If it doesn't provide basic features because of policy, why does it exist? 3) Pedantic response 4) If only there was a way to provide a great soundstage with 1 tweeter, thus avoiding comb filter problems. I'm sure it'll be much better in the future. Of course, that's how technology works - not much of a sales pitch. 5) Yes, they waded into the streaming device market, look how they own it. Roku got obliterated by the Apple TV, right. They waded into providing basic features like USB on their devices - look how they own that market. iOS devices swamp the Android market? Uh, no.
Yes, ignore the features people want and focus on one that's not hard to get right, audio fidelity. And then charge a premium. Audiophiles aren't replacing their Hi-Fi with these anyway...
Sure, FB can't guarantee it or other social media is good for democracy, but it would be a great start if they and other players like Google/Youtube were to curtail curating your feed for the sole purpose of keeping your eyes on the screen as long as possible.
It has already been proven the FB feeds posts, news, etc. that align with the political ideology it "thinks" you hold. This creates a hyper-echo chamber where people no longer are exposed to dissenting ideas and become inured with their beliefs being endlessly reinforced instead of challenged.
Facebook's behavior actively discourages civil discourse all in the name of advertising revenue.
No service should be filtering what you see based on unseen algorithms or so called, "experts". Give the individual a robust tool-set to make their own decisions.
To those of you saying a system should be implemented, who exactly would you cede what you should see to? Who knows better than you?
If BMW was interested in making Carplay more palatable to those who lease, they'd eliminate the fee altogether. Making people pay for integration with an infotainment system that has a UI so terrible it's legendary while it's totally free on the most "pedestrian" vehicles is beyond stupid/greedy.
"If you run an operating system from a software vendor that rarely produces its own hardware that is installed on billions of devices that interface with the OS through drivers not written by the software vendor, this kind of crap will happen."
So what you're saying is you've never used a well designed operating system that properly abstracts hardware, memspace, etc. Might I suggest you try a mature X86 Unix variant?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course they won't be able to peer into HTTPS/TLS data streams, but they'll get *everything else*. All non-encrypted traffic, all DNS lookups, all app traffic, etc.
It's still a goldmine for them. And should be a resounding, "HELL NO" for the consumer.
You'd have to be absolutely mental to VPN all your traffic through Facebook's servers. They have direct access to all your traffic as it leaves their VPN concentrator. Their wet dream.
People really need to educate themselves about how VPNs work, what they are and aren't good for.
Secure, encrypted traffic between two endpoints? GOOD!
Secure, encrypted traffic between yourself and an actor with unknown motives who by default has to decrypt it before sending it on it's way to the Internet? DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD!
I think a course about the ethics of AI is a great idea. But aren't Ethics and Critical Thinking classes already requirements? They were when I was at University, back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
If they aren't fundamental requirements at every college, the system has failed.
Yes, the gap is real. But demonstrably, not purely because of sex. Womens' choices are kind of important, don't you think?
Oh, it's 21% now? I thought it was 7%. I mean 9%. I mean 24%.
Funny how the number is all over the place...
Access from the IP address is working fine.
Channels about chemistry, logical thinking, social discourse, physics, etc. are demonetized at the drop of a hat, but we have Pewdiepie, menstrual blood "art" and pop stars wearing strap-on dildoes at the top.
Social media is not about liberal notions like free speech, education, science. It's about doing everything possible to keep eyes focused on the stream of shit for as long as possible. The byproduct is the algorithms that select the carefully crafted stream of diarrhea ensure everyone stays in their same lane, comfort bubble.
Discourse, critical thinking are the backbone of western societies. We're in trouble.
This is trivial compared to the current fad of open plan offices. I used to revile my cubicle...until I got a taste of an open plan environment. Distraction hell.
What exactly is your definition of "torture"? There is a large body of evidence that shows solitary confinement causes severe psychological damage. Prisons are beginning to abolish it because it does not actually improve anything; rather, it literally drives people crazy.
More talk of "consequences" for "misbehavior" with absolutely clarity about what that means. Just more ass-covering maneuvers by an Alphabet company that allow it to do whatever it wants with absolutely zero explanation.
Given Google's ideological track record both online and in the workplace, there is no reason whatsoever to believe this will be good for the content creator or the free exchange of ideas in general.
Ignore this post - weird double post. Look at the earlier one.
My bad.
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
It would be one thing if FB drunken unicorn algorithms notified the user of potential X and detailed WHY information Y is suspect. But FB has a growing history of making "decisions" with no explanation or even worse, no evidence it has done so. Or to summarise, "utterly shit transparency"
When the algorithms start making decisions for you without your knowledge, is the machine serving you or are you serving the machine?
The real answer is shoring up, teaching critical thinking skills and proving people with information so they can make their own decisions. Given the growing body of evidence that FB, Google, Twitter's collective political ideologies guide the above non-transparent actions, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the aforementioned drunken unicorn algorithms / AI don't reflect some of that.
People need more information, no less. And they generally abhor the mere possibility that they're being manipulated, rightly so.
I'm starting to think 1984, Brave New World got one critical idea wrong - that in the future, Gov'ts would wield power to control and rewrite information. The reality is showing corporations are the behemoth we should be every bit as wary of. This is exactly what worshipping at the alter of business as the ultimate savior gets you.
No, in many cases, the market *won't* fix it.
1) Pedantic response
2) If it doesn't provide basic features because of policy, why does it exist?
3) Pedantic response
4) If only there was a way to provide a great soundstage with 1 tweeter, thus avoiding comb filter problems. I'm sure it'll be much better in the future. Of course, that's how technology works - not much of a sales pitch.
5) Yes, they waded into the streaming device market, look how they own it. Roku got obliterated by the Apple TV, right. They waded into providing basic features like USB on their devices - look how they own that market. iOS devices swamp the Android market? Uh, no.
Yes, ignore the features people want and focus on one that's not hard to get right, audio fidelity. And then charge a premium. Audiophiles aren't replacing their Hi-Fi with these anyway...
That's why the United States is a representative republic, not a pure democracy.
This is grammar school level basics of U.S. gov't....
That is all.
If they're driven out of business by anti-competitive practices, you can't shop there.
Amazon is on the cusp of becoming the largest retailer *and* media company *and* (cloud) computing company
Let's not forget that Intel's CEO sold the maximum number of shares he was allowed to suspiciously close to (before) this bug was public.
https://www.fool.com/investing...
Fantastic idea. I bet Gov't intel (pun intended) agencies will applaud users being aware of all the holes and back doors in their system.
Sure, FB can't guarantee it or other social media is good for democracy, but it would be a great start if they and other players like Google/Youtube were to curtail curating your feed for the sole purpose of keeping your eyes on the screen as long as possible.
It has already been proven the FB feeds posts, news, etc. that align with the political ideology it "thinks" you hold. This creates a hyper-echo chamber where people no longer are exposed to dissenting ideas and become inured with their beliefs being endlessly reinforced instead of challenged.
Facebook's behavior actively discourages civil discourse all in the name of advertising revenue.
No service should be filtering what you see based on unseen algorithms or so called, "experts". Give the individual a robust tool-set to make their own decisions.
To those of you saying a system should be implemented, who exactly would you cede what you should see to? Who knows better than you?
You don't get rich by indiscriminately squandering your money...
"Oh, you took it to a non-BWM approved place for an oil change once? There goes your warranty."
In the United States, that's illegal. They can't force you to use the dealer for service nor can they force you to use OEM parts.
If BMW was interested in making Carplay more palatable to those who lease, they'd eliminate the fee altogether. Making people pay for integration with an infotainment system that has a UI so terrible it's legendary while it's totally free on the most "pedestrian" vehicles is beyond stupid/greedy.
"If you run an operating system from a software vendor that rarely produces its own hardware that is installed on billions of devices that interface with the OS through drivers not written by the software vendor, this kind of crap will happen."
So what you're saying is you've never used a well designed operating system that properly abstracts hardware, memspace, etc. Might I suggest you try a mature X86 Unix variant?