I kind of feel like that’s the equivalent argument to “don’t like the way financial systems collect and sell your data? Just don’t use the banking system.”
It basically excuses terrible behavior by entities that, for the most part, people are forced to have at least some contact with in the course of normal life. (Especially when you consider things like facebook’s “shadow profiles” on people who have never joined). Yes, I mean, theoretically everyone could go be an “off the grid” survivalist in alaska or something, and try just living off the land with no contact with the system etc, but that’s not really an option, therefore, it’s not really a free choice, and in any case…well, there’s a reason that conning people is against the law, even if they had to fall for it in the first place. The fact that people do and did does not excuse the culpability of the people perpetuating the scam. Similarly, the fact that you could avoid banks or facebook or whatever does not justify whatever terrible thing those organizations get up to this week.
It’s not excusing terrible behavior, it’s recognizing that you have absolutely no recourse against an unregulated, avowedly evil corporation that sees you as nothing more than a monetization scheme.
With the banking system, most people recognize that the banks cannot be trusted, and hence must be heavily regulated. People also recognize that there need to be many banks so you can take your business elsewhere.
I mean, look at all the complaints people have about too-big-to-fail, mergers, and the like: our political leaders may be beholden to rich banking interests, but regular people see the problem here.
If you want some kind of leverage to use against Facebook, you ultimately need the power to walk away and take your business to some place that treats you better.
But, frankly, when you are comparing the use of FaceBook with survival itself it sounds like a very desperate rationalization.
A bogus dichotomy I encounter every day is that of No System VS The System. That people either accept some sprawling default system others use to exploit them, or else they live in limbo with no system at all. That you either accept some contradictory network of social obligations, or else you go live in isolation. It is bogus. FaceBook has not always existed. It is not even the only “social media” service you can choose from now. Choose the best system you can, or if you don’t like what’s on offer, create a new one - it’s what “The Real Players” do.
Saying that there are no real choices is only a way to save face when people don’t like to consider choices they don’t like. When you internalize the expectation of being exploited, it seems easier because the responsibility for making tough - possibly even life-or-death - decisions appears to be out of your hands.
The post seems to be written with an unspoken understanding that we, the readers, already know what happened. But I don’t know the details of what happened, and the story neither explains it, nor provides links to reports with more background.
I didn’t compare it with survival itself; just off the grid living (survival /= survivalist). The truth is that it is important: try and find an apartment in San Francisco without a facebook profile. It’s one of the first ways people screen prospective roommates…which puts it really in terms with trying to rent a place without credit history. It’s doable, but the odds are very much stacked against you.
The point is not that that’s the end all and be all of importance, but it is an example of the way that it’s been made hardto operate without some sort of presence on Facebook (or any of its other equally terrible equivalents or related services). If you don’t like the bank example, sub in any of the “well, you don’t NEED the internet” arguments made in regards to cable companies cutting people off the internet for copyright infringement allegations.
And the truth is that it’s not just Facebook, it’s everything. You basically have to swear off any interaction on the internet if you’re going to remain pure in the stakes of “well, if you didn’t like them flagrantly abusing you, why did you sign up with them in the first place?”
So it isn’t the same thing as your choice to buy food from one particular fast food chain or whatever other consumer choice you might want to use as an example, because there are certain institutions that are so big and so ubiquitous that you really would need to go to the extremes - the off the grid alaska example - to truly opt out. So “just opt out” is not really a useful suggestion or a workable solution.
And yet whenever someone brings up any terrible thing about Facebook (or Paypal, or Google, or Amazon, or whatever), you get a hundred snotty variations on “that’s what you get for using them, idiot”, which is treated like the end of the discussion.
And yet would you say people in fact have that choice?
I’d happily see more regulation - and trust busting. I guess that, like the banking system, I don’t think it’s something that can be reformed simply by refraining from participating. I think the problem is systematic and thus, requires more than individual choice to reform.
Yes, not the best definition. Not that definitions are rigid, but it involves creating a fake online persona for the purposes of deceiving someone else (wikipedia). The person who is the victim of the deception might more properly be the one who is catfished; the person who’s photos got use as the bait (in this case me) might be called what??
You can certainly choose to not use Facebook. It won’t reform the system, but it will to some tiny degree devalue what Facebook is offering (since what they’re offering is you).
What won’t help is complaining that Facebook is a bunch of meanies, while implicitly supporting their scheme to make everyone use it. By providing your presence and creating a bunch of free content for their system (even complaints) you’re just increasing their value to others. As long as people don’t feel there’s any choice but to use Facebook, there’s no reason Facebook should care.
This is truer than true. But while futile, if we do not throw a few stones against the castle walls, people won’t have any awareness of the s*** that goes on.
What Facebook, Linked in offer you is this report tool, which works in cases of individual malfeasance. But these scams are being run by operations that use massive attack programs to create multiple accounts at once. The reporting system is like swatting flies in a meteorite storm.
So no, I cannot individually change the forces of the catfishes, nor can I even get facebook’s attention. But it’s still worth (IMHO) calling them out in public on this stuff. Because if we just hang our heads and go home, we lose a chance to give some light to others.
