Hmm…makes me wonder if @armozel is on the fediverse.
Basically You have a bunch of different social networks and they talk a common protocol, this way I can follow you even when I’m on my server and you’re on your server and it all works mostly transparently. BB featured Mastodon a while ago, some software which does exactly this. I’ve ran GNU Social for…7 years now, going on 8? It’s compatible with Mastodon, so I can sit on my server up in the mountains and chat with people who are on a french Mastodon server.
If they federate incorporating something like a common Diaspora equivalent of the OStatus protocol it’s game over for their business model. Facebook relies on a lowest-common-denominator walled-garden advertising and data brokering model, and they only have to look to AOL to see what happens when you starting giving the inmates access to the wider world.
It’s more likely they’ll keep acquiring the most popular social networking competitors that start pulling the attention of the young folks away from Facebook, as they did with Instagram. Then they’ll draw the users back into their core social network user base.
Whatever happens with FB, you’re right that the fate of net neutrality will determine a lot of it. If Pai’s abomination stands up to the many court challenges, local ISP workarounds, and other countermeasures being contemplated then Facebook will no doubt be the central (and indeed mandatory) offering of the “easy, convenient, and inexpensive” basic-cable tier of ISP service.
I know that sounds extremely scary when written out in five-dollar words, but given the scant data Facebook can gather from posts I’m tagged in and connections in my contact list, if they want to suggest I buy stuff from Amazon in a sidebar ad that I can ignore so that my sister can share her baby photos with me on a free website, I don’t personally consider that an invasion of my privacy worth ignoring my family’s communications over. Eventually a decent alternative to Facebook will come along that’s much simpler (it’s become the iTunes of websites, trying to do everything for everybody and becoming a nightmare to navigate) and that grandparents and soccer moms and teens can all hop onto to say hi to each other equally, but for now, I can use the tools in Facebook to make sure nazis aren’t looking at family photos.
Do you have five-cent words that describe those concepts as concisely?
I’m not really concerned about Facebook using your profile (and shadow profile) to show you ads – my “free” e-mail provider does that as well, although less effectively due to a profile that’s a lot less comprehensive than the one Facebook compiles. I’m resigned to the fact that Facebook has a profile of me despite my never having joined the network or given my consent to be profiled, but I’m not going to help them by giving them even more info.
I’m more worried about who Facebook will start sharing all that information about you and your acquaintanceship network (including people who never joined) and your activities once a strong competitor puts their revenues under pressure or once shareholders demand more profits than an ad-based model can deliver.
Facebook will still allow you to block Nazis from looking at your photos, but due to the one-sided EULA update you agreed to you won’t be able to block them from selling relevant portions of your aggregate data (including affinity information their black-box algorithms correctly or incorrectly infers) to employers, school administrators, political parties or law enforcement.
The problem with Facebook is that, from its beginnings as Facemash, it has intruded on people’s good faith-provision of personal information (e.g. a woman providing a photo for a Harvard residence face book) and repurposed it for its own benefit (e.g. using those photos for a “hot or not” game) without those peoples’ consent. That disrespectful attitude toward privacy has turned it into a multi-billion dollar company, so I doubt that their attitude is going to change.
It comes down to a matter of trust. I don’t voluntarily do business with companies that treat their users with that level of open contempt, especially when there are more than adequate alternatives.
You might be surprised. If your on-device infosec is very good, it might be true. But do they have identifiable pictures of your face? Then you might be surprised what they know.
Not really. I’m not as naive as I might sound, honestly. While Facebook does indeed have identifiable pictures of my face, I’m pretty aware of What They Know and what they can do with that information. And it doesn’t concern me. Quite honestly, I’m glad I’m not in a situation where I have reason to be paranoid or afraid of my name being attached to a photograph of myself.
People are often surprised what data they are able to gather, and not just on their site, across any site that embeds a facebook pixel or facebook asset or facebook advertising. The machines are much better about sussing out patterns, from where your mouse hovers for longer, how long you stay in areas, etc.
Remember when they figured out how to reverse whatever anyone typed on a smart phone based only on the registered accelerometer impacts that any app can monitor? When a vast array of deep data is connected we can’t always predict the connections and information that can be gleaned.
I think most people don’t realize how deep and personal these data sets get very quickly, and would be startled to see what connections and information can be inferred from patterns, especially as the analysis tools continue to improve exponentially.
So while I don’t get too tinfoil hatty right now, i am cautious about these tech and think we should regulate them before they become a major problem.
basically…I’m agreeing with you, but also saying hey don’t brush off this stuff too quickly because…xyz might indeed be a concern.
