> Should we all just leave Facebook? That may sound attractive but it is not a viable solution.
It's the only sane response, and has been the only sane response, for the past decade. The only counter-argument given by NYT is that in some countries Facebook has a stranglehold. I don't see how that's relevant to people who don't live in those countries. As for organisers of political groups exclusively using Facebook (which is just a terrifying idea for a number of reasons), just pull a Stallman and email them explaining the problem with Facebook and ask if there's another way of staying abreast of the group. You can't fix the problem if you don't even try.
By not exercising your ability to protest against systemic and deep-seated abuse of user privacy, you're just making the world worse for the people who don't have that option currently (because it just tightens their stranglehold).
It seems incredibly bizarre to me that the author says that.
She lists all the privacy and user trust violations, future social health concerns, but then says leaving Facebook isn't viable?
I have little faith in the US government regulating Facebook's privacy and data mining and even less faith that Facebook would take any action on behalf of its users privacy. Leaving Facebook is the only viable solution.
"Leaving" Facebook is close to impossible. They track you and keep a profile on you no matter what.
Other than that, there's no competitor to Facebook that exists in the same market. My favorite stores and restaurants downtown have events and sales and information that is only on Facebook. Saying "just quit Facebook" is like saying "just stop making phone calls" or "just get rid of your mailbox" or "just stop reading emails". Entirely possible, sure. But depending on your life situation, you might be giving up more than you're getting back.
Like it or not, for some people there are things on Facebook that are only on Facebook, can only exist on Facebook, and have only been enabled by Facebook. Anything else can replace it, but currently nothing like that even remotely exists.
>Saying "just quit Facebook" is like saying "just stop making phone calls" or "just get rid of your mailbox" or "just stop reading emails"
I don't agree with this analogy. Phone calls and physical/electronic mail are a technology, not a corporation. While I'm sure Facebook would like to be there, as it stands a Facebook account is nowhere near the importance of phones/mail to function in a modern society. In fact, I truly hope it does not reach that point, as a central authority like Facebook can choose to blacklist your accounts entirely. (https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/18/facebook-has-suspended-the...)
>"Leaving" Facebook is close to impossible. They track you and keep a profile on you no matter what.
This is mostly dependent on data being fed by your friends and family. Unfortunately, you enjoying events and sales is contributing to this "shadow profiling".
Facebook may as well be considered a technology in and of itself. Nothing else compares. Everything else in the sector is either successful in its niche or wildly unsuccessful. In the 70s and 80s, there were phone companies other than Bell... but you probably didn't have one. You probably had a Bell phone with Bell service. It took government regulation to change it from a company to a technology because everyone was happy enough to keep it as a company.
We're not talking about search engines where all the information is the same and the only competition is who can display them best. With Facebook, much of the information is only available on Facebook, only accessed through Facebook, and in some cases, only enabled by Facebook. Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, Mastadon, Twitter, none of these social networks are half of what Facebook is, yet Facebook is all of them combined. It's not interchangeable, there are tradeoffs to switching.
>Unfortunately, you enjoying events and sales is contributing to this "shadow profiling".
Which is exactly what I always argue when people say you don't have to give up any social interaction by giving up Facebook. If that information is only on Facebook, you have to use Facebook no matter what, or you have to give up some amount of understanding of the world around you. I'm not going to stop enjoying local bands or community social events, and the only source for that right now in my community is Facebook.
I'd love an American GDPR because as far as my life is concerned, Facebook isn't going anywhere.
> They track you and keep a profile on you no matter what.
This is only true because the voting US public believes it to be true.
Meanwhile, the EU simply wrote a law against it. Now any EU citizen can simply withhold consent, and if FB continues to process datasets with their PII they will be brought to court.
>This is only true because the voting US public believes it to be true.
It's true because it's true. Full stop.
You may argue that there are ways to stop it, and sure there are. Like you said, the EU did it, and it's a great law. But GDPR doesn't make it less true in areas not impacted by GDPR, which is everywhere because it doesn't go into effect until May.
I didn't say "there's no way to stop it", which is a statement that is only true because the voting US public believes it to be true. I said "they track you and keep a profile on you no matter what", which is true because it's exactly true.
Not believing it to be true won't make it less true.
“Protest” by way of market choice is such a tired fallacy. It’s really amazing so many HN readers are so ready to take such outdated philosophy to the grave.
I am in very strongly favour of GDPR and other similar regulations. I just also think that enabling giants like Facebook to abuse you by admitting that you are unable to function without them is a bad strategy. Diversify if you can, and regulate to protect those who cannot. Nobody said you cannot approach something like this on more than one front.
My (individual) approach has been to try to carefully curate my content where it's associated with my Real Name: FB and LinkedIn. LI especially - I think everybody does this.
I am absolutely not the person I portray on FB. Co workers. People I know, they're all pretty aware of this.
It is an extra level of intimacy in my personal relationships that I allow them to know the real me.
Other social networks, where I can use sock puppets - I get out my frustrations by talking about things I would never talk about on FB. In this way, I maximize the usefulness of these tools, and I minimize my usefulness as a tool for them.
“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change."
It's the only sane response, and has been the only sane response, for the past decade. The only counter-argument given by NYT is that in some countries Facebook has a stranglehold. I don't see how that's relevant to people who don't live in those countries. As for organisers of political groups exclusively using Facebook (which is just a terrifying idea for a number of reasons), just pull a Stallman and email them explaining the problem with Facebook and ask if there's another way of staying abreast of the group. You can't fix the problem if you don't even try.
By not exercising your ability to protest against systemic and deep-seated abuse of user privacy, you're just making the world worse for the people who don't have that option currently (because it just tightens their stranglehold).