339 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Donie O’Sullivan. ‘So the Video Bannon Streamed Live Saying Dr. Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray Should Be Beheaded Has Been on Facebook for 10 Hours and Has 200,000 Views. 10 Hours. Remember That next Time Zuckerberg Talks about All the Moderators and A.I. They Have.’ Tweet. @donie (blog), 6 November 2020. https://twitter.com/donie/status/1324524141869965312.

  2. Feb 2021
    1. Facebook (stylized as facebook) is an American online social media and social networking service based in Menlo Park, California, and a flagship service of the namesake company Facebook, Inc. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along with fellow Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.

      Facebook is based in California and was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Duston Moskovitz and Chris Hughes.

    1. A short time later I slip into the back of a two-story amphitheater where Zuckerberg, dressed in a dark suit and a tie, has come to make the case that the Internet should be considered, like health care or clean water, a basic human right. He sees this as the most critical social endeavor of our time. Zuckerberg believes peer-to-peer communications will be responsible for redistributing global power, making it possible for any individual to access and share information. People could tap into government services, determine crop prices, get health care. A kid in India—Zuckerberg loves this hypothetical about a kid in India—could potentially go online and learn all of math. “It’s the underpinning for helping people get into the modern economy,” he says. “Ten years from now, we should not have to look back and accept there are people who don’t have access to that.”

      马克·扎克伯格在这次会议的演讲中呼吁让全世界的人都能接入互联网,他认为,互联网应该像卫生保健和净水一样,被当成一项基本人权。他把这个看作是当今时代最关键的社会尝试。扎克伯格相信,点对点通信承担着对全球能力进行重新分配的责任,使每个人都能接触和共享信息。人们能够接入政府服务,决定农作物价格,获取健康护理服务。一个印度的小孩可能借助在线学习掌握所有的数学知识。「这是帮助人们参与当今经济的基础,」他说,「如果在十年后回望今天,我们不应该接受还有人无法使用互联网这个事实。」

    2. Inside Facebook’s Ambitious Plan to Connect the Whole World
    1. Plus, also, this website? It's like my home, on the internet. I have this online, virtual space that I can decorate any which way I want. I can add all sorts of things for people to read, talk all day about the things that interest me, make it any color, any pattern, any font, any layout. I keep it simple, yes, but it's my space. And there's Park City, the "netgroup" I admin as well, which is like a communal webspace for me and my friends. It's just, I feel such a sense of ownership over my homepage, such a sense of freedom, and I love it. If there's anything this pandemic has taught me, it's that I need this space to express myself. For the vast majority of the pandemic I essentialy did not have a life outside the digital world, besides the bare minimum like eating and sleeping and such. Most places outdoors right now are too dangerous, and I do not feel any sense of ownership at all in my current living space. The computer is all I have. It's all a lot of people right now have.

      This is how one will know that Facebook is heavily declining: when they allow people to customize the look/feel of their own pages.

    1. A synopsis of some of what Twitter has been doing wrong, opportunities squandered, and what it could be doing. Reasonable analysis of what some new competitors are doing to generate value in tangential spaces.

    1. Greene went on to say, "If it weren't for the Facebook post and comments that I liked in 2018, I wouldn't be standing here today and you couldn't point a finger and accuse me of anything wrong."

      Sure... blame Facebook!

      I'll bet dollars to donuts that she doesn't vote to regulate Facebook in any way during her tenure.

    1. The parallels between walled gardens and the Berlin Wall don't stop there: the East German government maintained that the Wall wasn't there to keep people from escaping; rather, they said it was there to stop westerners who longed for the East German lifestyle from pouring across the border. Today, Facebook insists that it blocks interoperability to keep privacy-plunderers out of its service -- not to trap its users inside.

      A pretty apt analogy!

    1. These noncommercial alternatives would not have to be funded by the government (which is fortunate, given that government funding for public media such as PBS is in doubt these days). Ralph Engelman, a media historian at Long Island University who wrote Public Radio and Television in America: A Political History, points out that the creation of public broadcasting was led by—and partially funded by—prominent nonprofit groups such as the Ford and Carnegie Foundations. In the past few years, several nonprofit journalism outlets such as ProPublica have sprung up; perhaps now their backers and other foundations could do more to ensure the existence of more avenues for such work to be read and shared.

      这些非商业性的替代方案不必由政府资助(这是幸运的,考虑到政府对公共媒体如公共广播公司PBS的资助最近受到质疑)。长岛大学的媒体历史学家拉尔夫-恩格尔曼(Ralph Engelman)撰写了《美国公共广播和电视:一部政治史》(Public Radio and Television in America: a Political History)一书指出,公共广播的创立是由福特基金会和卡内基基金会等著名非营利组织领导的,并在一定程度上得到了它们的资助。在过去几年中,一些非营利性新闻机构如ProPublica如雨后春笋般涌现;也许现在它们的支持者和其他基金会可以做更多的工作,以确保这些工作有更多的途径被阅读和分享。

    2. Facebook is fundamentally not a network of ideas. It’s a network of people. And though it has two billion active users every month, you can’t just start trading insights with all of them. As Facebook advises, your Facebook friends are generally people you already know in real life. That makes it more likely, not less, to stimulate homogeneity of thought. You can encounter strangers if you join groups that interest you, but those people’s posts are not necessarily going to get much airtime in your News Feed. The News Feed is engineered to show you things you probably will want to click on. It exists to keep you happy to be on Facebook and coming back many times a day, which by its nature means it is going to favor emotional and sensational stories.

      Facebook从根本上来说不是一个思想的网络。它是一个人际网络。虽然它每个月有20亿活跃用户,但你不能就这样开始和他们所有人交换见解。正如Facebook建议的那样,你的Facebook好友一般都是你在现实生活中已经认识的人。这使它更有可能,而不是更少,刺激思想的同质性。如果你加入你感兴趣的群组,你可能会遇到陌生人,但这些人的帖子不一定会在你的新闻动态(News Feed)中占据太多时间。新闻动态(News Feed)的设计是为了让你看到你可能会想点击的东西。它的存在是为了让你在Facebook上开心,并每天查看多次,这意味着它会是情感和耸人听闻的故事。

  3. Jan 2021
    1. Facebook further its core mission: the optimization and auctioning of human behavior (colloquially known as “targeted advertising”).

      A better description of what Facebook does than it's whitewashed description of "Connecting everyone".

    1. Documents examined by the Wall Street Journal last May show Facebook’s internal research found 64 percent of new members in extremist groups joined because of the social network’s “Groups you should join” and “Discover” algorithms.
  4. Dec 2020
    1. The few people who are willing to defend these sites unconditionally do so from a position of free-speech absolutism. That argument is worthy of consideration. But there’s something architectural about the site that merits attention, too: There are no algorithms on 8kun, only a community of users who post what they want. People use 8kun to publish abhorrent ideas, but at least the community isn’t pretending to be something it’s not. The biggest social platforms claim to be similarly neutral and pro–free speech when in fact no two people see the same feed. Algorithmically tweaked environments feed on user data and manipulate user experience, and not ultimately for the purpose of serving the user. Evidence of real-world violence can be easily traced back to both Facebook and 8kun. But 8kun doesn’t manipulate its users or the informational environment they’re in. Both sites are harmful. But Facebook might actually be worse for humanity.
    2. Facebook’s stated mission—to make the world more open and connected—

      If they were truly serious about the connectedness part, they would implement the Webmention spec and microformats, or something just like it, but open and standardized.

    3. Every time you click a reaction button on Facebook, an algorithm records it, and sharpens its portrait of who you are.

      It might be argued that the design is not creating a portrait of who you are, but of who Facebook wants you to become. The real question is: Who does Facebook want you to be, and are you comfortable with being that?

    4. No one, not even Mark Zuckerberg, can control the product he made. I’ve come to realize that Facebook is not a media company. It’s a Doomsday Machine.
    1. On August 10, 2009, FriendFeed accepted Facebook’s offer. As Facebook employees internally discussed via email on the day of the acquisition, “I remember you said to me a long time (6 months ago): ‘we can just buy them’ when I said to you that Friendfeed is the company I fear most. That was prescient! :).”
  5. Nov 2020
    1. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled, "Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election."

      Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled, "Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONYuLP7sHFQ

      Post 2020 Election testimony. It should be spicy..

    1. Facebook Inc. FB 0.73% is demanding that a New York University research project cease collecting data about its political-ad-targeting practices, setting up a fight with academics seeking to study the platform without the company’s permission. The dispute involves the NYU Ad Observatory, a project launched last month by the university’s engineering school that has recruited more than 6,500 volunteers to use a specially designed browser extension to collect data about the political ads Facebook shows them.

      I haven't seen a reference to it in any of the stories I've seen about Facebook over the past decade, but at it's root, Facebook is creating a Potemkin village for each individual user of their service.

      Not being able to compare my Potemkin Village to the possibly completely different version you see makes it incredibly hard for all of us to live in the same world.

      It's been said that on the internet, no one knows you're a dog, but this is even worse: you probably have slipped so far, you're not able to be sure what world you're actually living in.

    1. No, I’ve never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he’s a real problem. I think ——

      Joe Biden is geen fan van Facebook

    1. Maar denk eens verder. Gaan we de wereld beter maken door verder te groeien? Dat willen ondernemers. En daar zijn neveneffecten aan verbonden. Uber is zogenaamd idealistisch. Ze willen de klant een betere en goedkopere taxirit bieden, maar hun chauffeurs worden uitgebuit. Met Airbnb kun je een leuk zakcentje verdienen, maar woonwijken worden hotels zonder sociale patronen. Facebook is één grote fake-news-show. Amazon is zo goedkoop dat ze alle kleine ondernemers van de weg drukken. Musk wil ons naar Mars brengen. Dat gaat zeker gebeuren, maar wat gaan we daar doen? Maakt het ons gelukkig? Waarom kiezen we er niet voor om elkaar en onze natuur op deze planeet vooruit te helpen?

      Alef Arendsen

    1. But as long as the most important measure of success is short-term profit, doing things that help strengthen communities will fall by the wayside. Surveillance, which allows individually targeted advertising, will be prioritized over user privacy. Outrage, which drives engagement, will be prioritized over feelings of belonging. And corporate secrecy, which allows Facebook to evade both regulators and its users, will be prioritized over societal oversight.

      Schneier is saying here that as long as the incentives are still pointing in the direction of short-term profit, privacy will be neglected.

      Surveillance, which allows for targeted advertising will win out over user privacy. Outrage, will be prioritized over more wholesome feelings. Corporate secrecy will allow Facebook to evade regulators and its users.

    2. Increased pressure on Facebook to manage propaganda and hate speech could easily lead to more surveillance. But there is pressure in the other direction as well, as users equate privacy with increased control over how they present themselves on the platform.

      Two forces acting on the big tech platforms.

      One, towards more surveillance, to stop hate and propaganda.

      The other, towards less surveillance, stemming from people wanting more privacy and more control.

    3. Facebook makes choices about what content is acceptable on its site. Those choices are controversial, implemented by thousands of low-paid workers quickly implementing unclear rules. These are tremendously hard problems without clear solutions. Even obvious rules like banning hateful words run into challenges when people try to legitimately discuss certain important topics.

      How Facebook decides what to censor.

    1. At the same time, working through these principles is only the first step in building out a privacy-focused social platform. Beyond that, significant thought needs to go into all of the services we build on top of that foundation -- from how people do payments and financial transactions, to the role of businesses and advertising, to how we can offer a platform for other private services.

      This is what Facebook is really after. They want to build the trust to be able to offer payment services on top of Facebook.

    2. People want to be able to choose which service they use to communicate with people. However, today if you want to message people on Facebook you have to use Messenger, on Instagram you have to use Direct, and on WhatsApp you have to use WhatsApp. We want to give people a choice so they can reach their friends across these networks from whichever app they prefer.We plan to start by making it possible for you to send messages to your contacts using any of our services, and then to extend that interoperability to SMS too. Of course, this would be opt-in and you will be able to keep your accounts separate if you'd like.

      Facebook plans to make messaging interoperable across Instagram, Facebook and Whatsapp. It will be opt-in.

    3. An important part of the solution is to collect less personal data in the first place, which is the way WhatsApp was built from the outset.

      Zuckerberg claims Whatsapp was built with the goal of not collecting much data from the outset.

    4. As we build up large collections of messages and photos over time, they can become a liability as well as an asset. For example, many people who have been on Facebook for a long time have photos from when they were younger that could be embarrassing. But people also really love keeping a record of their lives.

      Large collections of photos are both a liability and an asset. They might be embarrassing but it might also be fun to look back.

    5. We increasingly believe it's important to keep information around for shorter periods of time. People want to know that what they share won't come back to hurt them later, and reducing the length of time their information is stored and accessible will help.

      In addition to a focus on privacy, Zuckerberg underlines a focus on impermanence — appeasing people's fears that their content will come back to haunt them.

    6. I understand that many people don't think Facebook can or would even want to build this kind of privacy-focused platform -- because frankly we don't currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services, and we've historically focused on tools for more open sharing.

      Zuckerberg acknowledges that Facebook is not known for its reputation on privacy and has focused on open sharing in the past.

    7. Today we already see that private messaging, ephemeral stories, and small groups are by far the fastest growing areas of online communication.

      According to Zuckerberg, in 2019 we're seeing private messaging, ephemeral stories and small groups as the fastest growing areas of online communication.

    8. As I think about the future of the internet, I believe a privacy-focused communications platform will become even more important than today's open platforms. Privacy gives people the freedom to be themselves and connect more naturally, which is why we build social networks.

      Mark Zuckerberg claims he believes privacy focused communications will become even more important than today's open platforms (like Facebook).

  6. Oct 2020
    1. Facebook AI is introducing M2M-100, the first multilingual machine translation (MMT) model that can translate between any pair of 100 languages without relying on English data. It’s open sourced here. When translating, say, Chinese to French, most English-centric multilingual models train on Chinese to English and English to French, because English training data is the most widely available. Our model directly trains on Chinese to French data to better preserve meaning. It outperforms English-centric systems by 10 points on the widely used BLEU metric for evaluating machine translations. M2M-100 is trained on a total of 2,200 language directions — or 10x more than previous best, English-centric multilingual models. Deploying M2M-100 will improve the quality of translations for billions of people, especially those that speak low-resource languages. This milestone is a culmination of years of Facebook AI’s foundational work in machine translation. Today, we’re sharing details on how we built a more diverse MMT training data set and model for 100 languages. We’re also releasing the model, training, and evaluation setup to help other researchers reproduce and further advance multilingual models. 

      Summary of the 1st AI model from Facebook that translates directly between languages (not relying on English data)

    1. you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).
    1. This is the story of how Facebook tried and failed at moderating content. The article cites many sources (employees) that were tasked with flagging posts according to platform policies. Things started to be complicated when high-profile people (such as Trump) started posting hate speech on his profile.

      Moderators have no way of getting honest remarks from Facebook. Moreover, they are badly treated and exploited.

      The article cites examples from different countries, not only the US, including extreme right groups in the UK, Bolsonaro in Brazil, the massacre in Myanmar, and more.

      In the end, the only thing that changes Facebook behavior is bad press.

    1. When Wojcicki took over, in 2014, YouTube was a third of the way to the goal, she recalled in investor John Doerr’s 2018 book Measure What Matters.“They thought it would break the internet! But it seemed to me that such a clear and measurable objective would energize people, and I cheered them on,” Wojcicki told Doerr. “The billion hours of daily watch time gave our tech people a North Star.” By October, 2016, YouTube hit its goal.

      Obviously they took the easy route. You may need to measure what matters, but getting to that goal by any means necessary or using indefensible shortcuts is the fallacy here. They could have had that North Star, but it's the means they used by which to reach it that were wrong.

      This is another great example of tech ignoring basic ethics to get to a monetary goal. (Another good one is Marc Zuckerberg's "connecting people" mantra when what he should be is "connecting people for good" or "creating positive connections".

    1. Meta co-founder and CEO Sam Molyneux writes that “Going forward, our intent is not to profit from Meta’s data and capabilities; instead we aim to ensure they get to those who need them most, across sectors and as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the world.”

      Odd statement from a company that was just acquired by Facebook founder's CVI.

    1. A spokeswoman for Summit said in an e-mail, “We only use information for educational purposes. There are no exceptions to this.” She added, “Facebook plays no role in the Summit Learning Program and has no access to any student data.”

      As if Facebook needed it. The fact that this statement is made sort of goes to papering over the idea that Summit itself wouldn't necessarily do something as nefarious or worse with it than Facebook might.

    1. M.B can’t be reduced to stereotypes, of course. But there’s also a bar to entry into this social-media network, and it’s a distinctly technophilic, first-world, Western bar.

      You can only say this because I suspect you're comparing it to platforms that are massively larger by many orders of magnitude. You can't compare it to Twitter or Facebook yet. In fact, if you were to compare it to them, then it would be to their early versions. Twitter was very technophilic for almost all of it's first three years until it crossed over into the broader conscious in early 2009.

      Your argument is somewhat akin to doing a national level political poll and only sampling a dozen people in one small town.

    1. Schemas aren't neutral

      This section highlights why relying on algorithmic feeds in social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter can be toxic. Your feed is full of what they think you'll like and click on instead of giving you the choice.

    1. In fact, these platforms have become inseparable from their data: we use “Facebook” to refer to both the application and the data that drives that application. The result is that nearly every Web app today tries to ask you for more and more data again and again, leading to dangling data on duplicate and inconsistent profiles we can no longer manage. And of course, this comes with significant privacy concerns.
    1. We believe that Facebook is also actively encouraging people to use tools like Buffer Publish for their business or organization, rather than personal use. They are continuing to support the use of Facebook Pages, rather than personal Profiles, for things like scheduling and analytics.

      Of course they're encouraging people to do this. Pushing them to the business side is where they're making all the money.

    1. hanks to a Facebook page, perhaps for the first time in history, an in-ternet user could click yes on an electronic invitation to a revolution
    1. Most previous explanations had focussed on explaining how someone’s beliefs might be altered in the moment.

      Knowing a little of what is coming in advance here, I can't help but thinking: How can this riot theory potentially be used to influence politics and/or political campaigns? It could be particularly effective to get people "riled up" just before a particular election to create a political riot of sorts and thereby influence the outcome.

      Facebook has done several social experiments with elections in showing that their friends and family voted and thereby affecting other potential voters. When done in a way that targets people of particular political beliefs to increase turn out, one is given a means of drastically influencing elections. In some sense, this is an example of this "Riot Theory".

    1. Even publishers with the most social media-savvy newsrooms can feel at a disadvantage when Facebook rolls out a new product.

      The same goes in triplicate when they pull the plug without notice too!

    1. People come to Google looking for information they can trust, and that information often comes from the reporting of journalists and news organizations around the world.

      Heavy hit in light of the Facebook data scandal this week on top of accusations about fake news spreading.

    2. We’re now in the early stages of testing a “Propensity to Subscribe” signal based on machine learning models in DoubleClick to make it easier for publishers to recognize potential subscribers, and to present them the right offer at the right time.

      Interestingly the technology here isn't that different than the Facebook Data that Cambridge Analytica was using, the difference is that they're not using it to directly impact politics, but to drive sales. Does this mean they're more "ethical"?

    1. Facebook’s use of “ethnic affinity” as a proxy for race is a prime example. The platform’s interface does not offer users a way to self-identify according to race, but advertisers can nonetheless target people based on Facebook’s ascription of an “affinity” along racial lines. In other words. race is deployed as an externally assigned category for purposes of commercial exploitation and social control, not part of self-generated identity for reasons of personal expression. The ability to define one’s self and tell one’s own stories is central to being human and how one relates to others; platforms’ ascribing identity through data undermines both.
    2. Facebook’s use of “ethnic affinity” as a proxy for race is a prime example. The platform’s interface does not offer users a way to self-identify according to race, but advertisers can nonetheless target people based on Facebook’s ascription of an “affinity” along racial lines. In other words, race is deployed as an externally assigned category for purposes of commercial exploitation and social control, not part of self-generated identity for reasons of personal expression. The ability to define one’s self and tell one’s own stories is central to being human and how one relates to others; platforms’ ascribing identity through data undermines both.
    1. You could throw the pack away and deactivate your Facebook account altogether. It will get harder the longer you wait — the more photos you post there, or apps you connect to it.

      Links create value over time, and so destroying links typically destroys the value.

    1. My hope is that it will somehow bring comments on Facebook back to the blog and display them as comments here.

      Sadly, Aaron Davis is right that Facebook turned off their API access for this on August 1st, so there currently aren't any services, including Brid.gy, anywhere that allow this. Even WordPress and JetPack got cut off from posting from WordPress to Facebook, much less the larger challenge of pulling responses back.

  7. Sep 2020
    1. What were the “right things” to serve the community, as Zuckerberg put it, when the community had grown to more than 3 billion people?

      This is just one of the contradictions of having a global medium/platform of communication being controlled by a single operator.

      It is extremely difficult to create global policies to moderate the conversations of 3 billion people across different languages and cultures. No team, no document, is qualified for such a task, because so much is dependent on context.

      The approach to moderation taken by federated social media like Mastodon makes a lot more sense. Communities moderate themselves, based on their own codes of conduct. In smaller servers, a strict code of conduct may not even be necessary - moderation decisions can be based on a combination of consensus and common sense (just like in real life social groups and social interactions). And there is no question of censorship, since their moderation actions don't apply to the whole network.

    1. “With no oversight whatsoever, I was left in a situation where I was trusted with immense influence in my spare time,” she wrote. “A manager on Strategic Response mused to myself that most of the world outside the West was effectively the Wild West with myself as the part-time dictator – he meant the statement as a compliment, but it illustrated the immense pressures upon me.”
    2. “There was so much violating behavior worldwide that it was left to my personal assessment of which cases to further investigate, to file tasks, and escalate for prioritization afterwards,” she wrote.

      Wow.

    3. Facebook ignored or was slow to act on evidence that fake accounts on its platform have been undermining elections and political affairs around the world, according to an explosive memo sent by a recently fired Facebook employee and obtained by BuzzFeed News.The 6,600-word memo, written by former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang, is filled with concrete examples of heads of government and political parties in Azerbaijan and Honduras using fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to sway public opinion. In countries including India, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, she found evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes to boost or hinder political candidates or outcomes, though she did not always conclude who was behind them.
    4. “In the office, I realized that my viewpoints weren’t respected unless I acted like an arrogant asshole,” Zhang said.
    1. On and on it goes, until the perceived cost of not being on Facebook is higher than the perceived downsides of joining the platform.

      De kosten om niet op Facebook te zijn, zijn hoger dan de nadelen van het lid worden van het platform. Die zin moet ik nog een paar keer op me in laten werken. Ik zie het nog niet voor me.

    1. il est fondamental de comprendre que, sur Facebook, je suis comme devant une fenêtre

      ... mais le caractère diaphane de Facebook n'est pas évident: certes, pour ce qu'on Like ou met en ligne publiquement; mais de manière beaucoup plus significative, le suivi à la trace de chacun de nos comportements – chaque clic sur un lien, chaque site web visité (où Facebook ou une de ses filiales est présent), chaque fraction de seconde pendant laquelle nous cessons de défiler… ce regard profondément asymmétrique qu’a Facebook sur nous, à notre insu, est majeur.

  8. Aug 2020
    1. The mass surveillance and factory farming of human beings on a global scale is the business model of people farmers like Facebook and Google. It is the primary driver of the socioeconomic system we call surveillance capitalism.
    1. Facebook has apologized to its users and advertisers for being forced to respect people’s privacy in an upcoming update to Apple’s mobile operating system – and promised it will do its best to invade their privacy on other platforms.

      Sometimes I forget how funny The Register can be. This is terrific.

    1. Facebook is warning developers that privacy changes in an upcoming iOS update will severely curtail its ability to track users' activity across the entire Internet and app ecosystem and prevent the social media platform from serving targeted ads to users inside other, non-Facebook apps on iPhones.

      I fail to see anything bad about this.

  9. Jul 2020
    1. But the business model that we now call surveillance capitalism put paid to that, which is why you should never post anything on Facebook without being prepared to face the algorithmic consequences.

      I'm reminded a bit of the season 3 episode of Breaking Bad where Jesse Pinkman invites his drug dealing pals to a Narcotics Anonymous-type meeting so that they can target their meth sales. Fortunately the two low lifes had more morality and compassion than Facebook can manage.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20kpzC3sckQ

  10. Jun 2020
    1. One of the new tools debuted by Facebook allows administrators to remove and block certain trending topics among employees. The presentation discussed the “benefits” of “content control.” And it offered one example of a topic employers might find it useful to blacklist: the word “unionize.”

      Imagine your employer looking over your shoulder constantly.

      Imagine that you're surveilled not only in regard to what you produce, but to what you—if you're an office worker—tap our in chats to colleagues.

      This is what Facebook does and it's not very different to what China has created with their Social Credit System.

      This is Orwellian.

    1. Alarmingly, Google now deploys hidden trackers on 76% of websites across the web to monitor your behavior and Facebook has hidden trackers on about 25% of websites, according to the Princeton Web Transparency & Accountability Project. It is likely that Google and/or Facebook are watching you on most sites you visit, in addition to tracking you when using their products.

    1. And while all major tech platforms deploying end-to-end encryption argue against weakening their security, Facebook has become the champion-in-chief fighting against government moves, supported by Apple and others.
    1. WhatsApp has become the dominant messaging platform, dwarfing all other contenders with the exception of its Facebook stablemate Messenger. In doing so, this hyper-scale “over-the-top” platform has also pushed legacy SMS messaging into the background
    1. The breach was caused by Facebook’s “View As” feature, which allows users to view their own account as if they were a stranger visiting it.
    2. “We have a responsibility to protect your data,” said Zuckerburg, in March. “And if we can’t, then we don’t deserve to serve you.”
    1. Facebook already harvests some data from WhatsApp. Without Koum at the helm, it’s possible that could increase—a move that wouldn’t be out of character for the social network, considering that the company’s entire business model hinges on targeted advertising around personal data.
  11. May 2020