I’m not terribly hip. Practically a Luddite, in fact.
Yes, I did not by any means come up with that phrase, but I like to think about it when using free services.
If you’re that worried about it then don’t fucking post it. It just amazes me the number of people who posts pictures of their kids, or even their cell phone numbers and then act shocked when they see it elsewhere.
Um, hello? You put it out there to begin with. If you’re stupid enough to dox yourself, I’m not going to feel sorry for you. Seriously, that’s just Internet 101.
Good for you.
Then why in the fuck are you in this thread?
in 2013, the NYT praised the democrat campaign for doing the same thing with Google.
It’s all about whose side you’re on.
Got a cite for that? Exactly how did the “democrat campaign” do the same thing with Google?
Because it’s a legitimate response to OP’s question.
Surely you haven’t appointed yourself censor and hall monitor, have you?
Everyone knows Facebook sells their data to advertisers. People didn’t realise that their data + marketing campaign could be used to influence more than just their soap purchase. If a group like Cambridge Analytica can use Facebook data to basically decide who wins the next election, that’s more than people signed up for.
People here wouldn’t accept my source because it doesn’t fit into their worldview.
Then provide an unbiased source. It isn’t that hard for things that are actually true.
Wait, what? You said “the NYT praised the democrat campaign”. All you need for a cite is to link to the article in the NYT that did so.
Then I guess this thread isn’t for you. Don’t come into a thread to announce that the topic is stupid.
No warning issued, but avoid doing this again.
Classic example of threadshitting followed by a classic example of Jr Modding.
If a post is problem, report it.
No warning issued but tone it down for this forum.
Sorry I threadshit. I didn’t realize.
That data was not illegally obtained by a secretive political influence organization that has a history of using blackmail and manipulation behind the scenes in order to facilitate winning elections for candidates.
There’s a huge difference between a legitimate company using data I’ve consented to give, with that data being used to advertise to me, and an illicit company stealing data it should not have, using that data in ways that people did not consent to.
Someone advertising soap isn’t doing harm. You know that it’s an ad, who is making the ad, and what they are trying to get you to do. The entire point of the Facebook fake news/advertising fiasco is that you didn’t necessarily know it was an ad, had no idea where the ad was coming from, and it was unclear that they were even trying to get you to do something.
It’s the difference between trying to convince someone and manipulating them. People who are being convinced are aware that someone is trying to convince them. It’s the difference between me giving you something voluntarily, and you stealing it.
Your comparison with Facebook and Google is like saying “Why are you upset that this thief stole your car? You let a ton of people borrow your car!” It’s like saying “Why do you care that someone stole your money? You spend it all the time!”
And your “just don’t like Trump” argument is like saying “Why do you care about your money being spent to fund gay conversion therapy? You pay a lot to mental health charities!” The target matters. The ads that I might find useful are something I may support, while the sneaky ads that trick me and my friends into voting against our own best interests are not something I support. You make that sound like some sort of hypocrisy.
Don’t let your anti-Facebook bias blind you. This is a big deal. This isn’t even really about Facebook (other than not reporting the breach). That’s just the site that was exploited. This is about organizations that clandestinely attempt to influence elections using nefarious means–and the fact that they stole a lot of data from American citizens in an attempt to get them to elect Donald Trump.
And Trump was indeed elected.
I think what’s being said BigT is that by posting that information online, you take the risk that it might be used. Or that an unscrupulous company MIGHT find a loophole somewhere.
I see an awful lot of people posting a whole bunch of crap online, and then acting stunned when it gets linked, or tagged, or whatever. And then start screaming about “invasion of privacy!” Well, no. The internet is not a private place.
You gotta take that into account. Was this organization at fault? Yeah. But you also have to take responsibilty for what you put out there in the first place.
I’ve always assumed that’s due to the Facebook icons that are common on webpages. Every page on the web that has a Facebook icon (one served by Facebook) gives Facebook a way to track you across the web via tracking cookies.
It’s weaponized psychology combined with virtually unlimited personal data. So far, I suspect we’ve seen only the more mild outcomes.
There’s no safe level of exposure to Facebook. Thinking that, because you know they’re data mining you, that you’re somehow immune is like thinking that you’re resistant to bullets if you know about them. We all have stupid monkey brains with easily pushed buttons.
I abhor the emoji buttons Facebook implemented 2 years ago (“love”, “angry”, “sad”, “wow”, “funny”) which can be clicked as an alternative to “liking” something.
Apparently there was public demand for such options, as many did not want to give the thumbs up to something containing unfortunate news, but still wanted something to click.
These maybe aren’t so bad when people are personally communicating, where the worst that happens is someone deliberately or mistakenly “laughs” at something awful, like cancer.
When it comes to news stories and news commentary, I think there’s an issue where many users don’t really read beyond the headline, and having these emotional reaction buttons often angry exacerbates it. A news headline can easily be framed in a way to elicit a primal reaction. I’d like for humans to have a chance to adjust to the medium in time and this is something constantly driving me crazy. I do sometimes see other sites have similar reactions you can click, but when I do they’re at the end of an article, not accompanying a headline or condensed description.
A few things. First, when Facebook said explicitly that they wouldn’t share data without permission, I assumed that meant that the algorithm for any focused advertising would happen at their end, and I was very content with that trade-off - I use your app to stay in contact with family and friends, and you get to aim ads at me. Heck, I’ll even click on some of them if they interest me, rather than get resentful about it. If it turns out however they’re sharing that data out to third parties in order to drive advertising, that’s not what Zuckerberg said would happen.
Second, I downloaded my data and found nothing harmful in it, but some folks are finding logs of their calls - who they called, and how long they were on. Apparently that’s part of the data that was stolen. The fact that they’d even collect that is troubling.
Third, as a lot of articles have pointed out, they let a bunch of apps on their platform that allowed collection of not just your data, but that of your FB contacts, which is a shabby way of letting someone get around the “permission” rule.
I’m okay with being the product as long as the rules are clear.