What's Up With Facebook?

[herbu]

So what's the deal? I thought all of these free social media sites sold user data to third parties. That's how they are "free" to users. I don't understand the problem. It is up to each user to be smart about what they post anywhere on the internet. What am I missing?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

TL;DR of it is Facebook collects users data in order to display most accurate advertisements. Their main income comes from paid ads for very highly targeted groups(it gets scary specific). Directly selling users data is not what was advertised thus the current commotion. The company which allegedly helped to get current POTUS win, used dodgy methods to scrap such data. Facebook found out about it back in 2015 and descided not disclose it based on vendors "scout honor" that they erased the data (they didn't)

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

unrelated people got spooked then found out that FB app on mobile devices records all phone numbers.
It's actually not that shady, since FB offers to opt-out, not many did.

 

[j_garcia]

Think of it like going to a concert where they pat you down before you go in and they use that consent to be searched to go check your car, your house, your work, people you know, where you spend your money, where you eat, what your political alignments are, etc... YEP, you sort of gave this info to them voluntarily too.

While I think many have said this many times over including me, this has been going on since they've been around, it is really just that people are now realizing to what extent and how invasive it can be.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Think of it like going to a concert where they pat you down before you go in and they use that consent to be searched to go check your car, your house, your work, people you know, where you spend your money, where you eat, what your political alignments are, etc... .

"people you know" is the critical part here, even if only 250k or so people used the "attitude test", vendor (Cambridge Analytica) got all the data for people you know, total amount of personal records leaked around 87 MILLION people.

Facebook indicated that users will be able to check if Cambridge Analytica had access to their data via a link that will appear at the top of their news feeds starting on April 9. This tool will also allow users to check what information they have shared with third-party apps.

 

[Midwesthonky]

I work off the principle of any info posted on the internet will be used against me by someone trying to profit from the information. I don't even refer to my spouse or my kids by their names on the internet. Sometimes, you really aren't paranoid but are right.

I have also gone so far as to go into each app on my phone and specifically deny access to my phone contacts, location, etc. I expect more than one cheats but at least I have done as much as I can.

 

[herbu]

I watched the video. Thanks. I find the whole thing kinda funny. We need the govt to step in and regulate the internet. No wait... we don't want the govt to step in and regulate the internet. Oh my... I'm so confused.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I watched the video. Thanks. I find the whole thing kinda funny. We need the govt to step in and regulate the internet. No wait... we don't want the govt to step in and regulate the internet. Oh my... I'm so confused.

Right to privacy, online or offline should be protected. Nothing to be confused about.
Net neutrality by itself would not be required, if ISPs in this county would not be local monopolies for most of the country, but they are and in lack of better option, Net Neutrality would have been it.

 

[herbu]

Right to privacy, online or offline should be protected.

We agree. I think the rub comes at where to draw the line in a public setting.

In your home, or on your banking site, I think there is a right to privacy. But when you walk around in the mall... not so much. And when you surf the free porn site or free social media, again not so much.

I think people need to use their head, and make responsible decisions to protect something they deem important, like their privacy.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

We agree. I think the rub comes at where to draw the line in a public setting.

100% Agreed

In your home, or on your banking site, I think there is a right to privacy. But when you walk around in the mall... not so much. And when you surf the free porn site or free social media, again not so much.

Let's agree to disagree, unless you enter your real name on adult cheating sites or browse pr0n at public locations, your info should be private. For social media, yes - if something is free online, typically you're the product, but still - you expect the provider to sell your metadata, not actual your actual very private data.

I think people need to use their head, and make responsible decisions to protect something they deem important, like their privacy.

Agreed, but in some cases, like Equifax breach, there's nothing you could've done and still tons of your and mine personal and private info got leaked and looks like Equifax is going to get away with it.

 

[herbu]

but in some cases, like Equifax breach, there's nothing you could've done and still tons of your and mine personal and private info got leaked

I couldn't agree more. But isn't that different? Any and everything on the web is subject to being hacked. The good guys and the bad guys are in a perpetual race with technology. And by definition, laws will not stop lawbreakers.

I see no way to assure the good guys are always the smartest guys in the room. And I see no way to stop lawbreakers with laws. (That is why new "gun control" laws won't work.) But I think free websites have been selling our info for many years. I read that Obama's team was pioneering and masterful at using it. So I'm still not sure what makes the current Facebook situation such a big deal.

 

[Swerd]

Businesses, large or small, have thrived when they operate under the principle that their customers are always right. FB may very well operate like that, but it's customers are other companies such as Cambridge Analytica. FB users are are not FB's customers – they're it's product. People object to a large powerful company selling their private information without any regulation.

I see no way to assure the good guys are always the smartest guys in the room. And I see no way to stop lawbreakers with laws.

You'll not stop anyone unless there first are laws defining what is and isn't legal. Large unregulated companies, such as FB, can and will operate with the principle that might makes right. Laws are only the first step. There has to be a public consensus that the laws be actively enforced. You have to spend money to enforce laws.

This is a large part of the problem with laws about gun sales. There are laws on the books, but little money is available to enforce them. The same politicians who backed the laws also have failed to spend money to enforce them.

 

[j_garcia]

Here's a good example. Cambridge gains access to 311K user's info via access from just 53 people.

https://gizmodo.com/just-53-people-used-the-app-that-let-cambridge-analytic-1825140173

Metadata is just as significant as your actual data too. There was an article that said Google (and all other harvesting companies no dobut) can tell who you are within a few minutes based on your personal patterns, even without you signing in to anything. So whether they have officially ID'ed you or not, the data can figure it out. Their thinking is they want to market to you, but those who are buying that info...who knows.

I have no FB account, but if you are on the internet SOMEONE has your info.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I have no FB account, but if you are on the internet SOMEONE has your info.

Yet, FB has info on you.
https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-ever-met-1819822691

 

[j_garcia]

Yet, FB has info on you.
https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-ever-met-1819822691

Yes, since the majority of the family and friends are on it, I am sure they know about me. It is a fact of life now.

 

[Swerd]

… Large unregulated companies, such as FB, can and will operate with the principle that might makes right.

In support of this, see this article from today's Washington Post:

14 years of Mark Zuckerberg saying sorry, not sorry

 

[Ponzio]

So what's the deal? I thought all of these free social media sites sold user data to third parties. That's how they are "free" to users. I don't understand the problem. It is up to each user to be smart about what they post anywhere on the internet. What am I missing?

U're not missing anything. A vast majority of people are either naive or stupid and have never heard of the expression, "consumer beware".

 

[pewternhrata]

People up in arms over pictures and messages they shared, most likely, on a public facebook page Yet no one really batted an eye over the Equifax breach, what a sad world. Hey your financial future could be in jeopardy, o well just DO NOT TOUCH MY PHOTOS ON A SOCIAL SITE, and how dare you attempt to sway my political views with that info (because we all know political propaganda is a new issue never seen before) it's a sad sad world.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... It is up to each user to be smart about what they post anywhere on the internet. What am I missing?

What you are missing is that most are not smart users.

 

[mtrycrafts]

..(because we all know political propaganda is a new issue never seen before) it's a sad sad world.

Yes, we do know. What is different is the specificity that they can use it unlike a newspaper add that goes to every household who subscribe to the paper.