I'm still completely convinced that this whole scandal will not damage Facebook a bit, in the long term. Yeah, the stock is going to be a bit lower for some weeks, some people will leave, but the largest part of the Facebook users has not even realised the scandal in full scale. They're not going anywhere, they're going to continue as is, since there really is not alternative for Facebook right now and tbh they would just probably do the same thing to their users so why bother. The only solution for people concerned with this is giving up on social media all together. The majority however won't care at all and still continue using Facebook.
> the largest part of the Facebook users has not even
> realized the scandal in full scale.
Exactly. That's why they must be regulated. Pharma companies, food companies, and airlines, to mention three, have the same sorts of characteristics in their businesses.
Examples: Airlines have regulations because the typical user has no way to evaluate maintenance regimes or navigation procedures. The big information-hoovering dotcoms need the same sorts of regulations for the same sorts of reasons. "We obtained user permission" needs to be a stronger claim than "we tricked users into checking a box."
The internet is as inherently global as the postal services are. What differentiates it is that it's faster, cheaper, and immaterial. In principle, the legal situation hasn't changed compared to before the internet was a thing. If you just want to do business in one country over the internet, you can do so. What has changed is that a company and a customer can reach each other easily, cheaply and fast aross national borders, using the internet. The drawback to international business is laws, rules and policies compliance.
Having that in mind, the project Gutenberg lawsuit makes sense. Imagine a service that copies a requested book and sends you that copy, all by postal services. If that company shipped into a country where the book in question stills protected by copyright, then it is clear that there will be legal action.
No, in fact, airlines have regulations, because big flying objects loaded with fuel are kinda seriously dangerous, and can kill (not in un*x console meaning of the word) lots of people at once. Very unlike social platforms, to be fair.
If regulations were introduced because of users not knowing what's good and beautiful, believe me, IT industry would be the most regulated thing in the world.
Don't you think that this "organize and manipulate hundreds of millions of people globally" thing is a very blurry fear-laden sensationalist wording, which practically implies that social platforms possess some kind of hypnotic power to drive humans to do something on orders from secret circles?
Not at all. People are rather easy to manipulate, if you control the flow of information. Hypnotic power is not required.
The formula is simple: promote emotionally powerful events that support your agenda, ignore events that inspire feelings counter to your agenda, deify supporters, demonize opponents, censor and ostracize anyone who speaks against the agenda.
That formula has led nations to war, sent innocent people to prison, changed laws, overthrown governments, led to acts of terror, and caused hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of deaths throughout history.
Well, with your formula you have just described work of media since invention of printing press. However, it doesn't work as easy as you described. Almost every political campaign tries to utilize this playbook, and absolute majority of of them fail. In fact, looking for the best historical examples fitting your argument one may find they generally comes from countries which strictly regulated their media.
For full effect, it requires control of the flow of information. It has indeed often failed in America and other countries where people had relatively free access to information.
But with digital information replacing newspapers, magazines, and TV, and with access to digital information being filtered through a handful of companies, those companies have immense power approaching that of governments that strictly regulate the media.
I don't agree with GP's assessment that users "haven't realized" but I do agree that the "majority however won't care". So why regulate if a majority of people are ok with it? They're not too stupid, they just don't prioritize the way some here do. Doesn't have to be a law to force them to prioritize this way. This false equivalence to expertise of airplane mechanics is completely different in a security context and these kinds of analogies only help to make others want to dismiss the point quicker. You want to regulate transparency, ok. But if some accept these things, let them.
> They're not too stupid, they just don't prioritize the way some here do
While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant. They simply don't know why they should care, probably due to a lack of understanding what it means for a company to have a copy of their data, and what that could enable those companies to do and figure out.
> While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant
If that's true, solve that problem directly via education and enforcing transparency. There are also other solutions such as grants w/ stipulations, enforcement of existing fraud statutes, etc.
Let's assume there are 3 segments of people here: 1) the ignorant, 2) the non-ignorant accepting, and the 3) non-ignorant unaccepting. We have to stop letting #3 (arguably the smallest group but probably consisting of most here) run the show wrt to laws. There are too many consequences to pieces of legislation that all of us business owners have to conform to regardless of whether it is targeted to us. Most often we don't even recognize the consequences because we are so focused on how good we're going to do and how much we're going to help everyone. I dub it digital security theater.
Of course it doesn't always apply. Of course car regulations (or the aforementioned airline ones) have purpose. Not sure why this physical safety equivalency keeps coming up. You have to take each problem at its face instead of bending to analogies and what-ifs. We have to stop guessing and throwing legislative spaghetti at walls hoping it sticks. There are paths to arrive at legislation, but it's not the first brick in the path.
Many look to Twitter as their new social media platform, that together with IG (which is owned by facebook sure, but it's "harder" to be political there, which it all comes down to in the end) and Snapchat as a messenger.
Google plus failed, so why wouldn't Facebook eventually do so also? The youth don't have Facebook, it's mostly the 20-40 year olds who do. This 20-40 generation follow the mainstream media news and most of them are capable of realizing the harm in not protecting ones own privacy. Also, the current theme of news regarding social media is that it's being seen as a threat to democracy due to the ease of massive manipulation through political propaganda. A huge attack! Threaten democracy and the people will hate it.
The reverse network effect is also real. People who leave for whatever reason reduce the value of the service to others. Services quickly goes from the first place to keep in contact to yet another place to post event announcements and not much else.
If Google+ were launching today, they might have a better chance. More people are interested in Facebook alternatives. At the time, Facebook had already supplanted MySpace and Google+ didn't offer anything attractive enough to switch again.
No point swapping Facebook for another advertising-driven social network in the same vein. If a company like Apple were running it and people were paying for it, that would be a different matter.
Google have contributed to privacy issues, e.g. with poor permission management.
I'd say the big difference with google is they can treat a social network as a loss leader. Google has other (far more profitable) forms of privacy invading revenue sources, facebook doesn't.
It's not a ideal solution however. If as a society we have decided social networks are important a not for profit, or decentralised federated scheme is probably the way to go.
Running a social website should be cheap enough that they don't need to be invasive. The company would be leaving money on the table as it where, but winning is worth enough that it's a good trade-off.
"If a company like Apple were running it and people were paying for it, that would be a different matter."
Oooh if only Apple did "social" apps well; they are famously not-so-great at doing them, I'm not sure where that comes from at root though.
Shooting from the hip: Maybe their intense internal secrecy translates into a worldview where the hyper-focus on the 1:1 relationship with their customer obscures their ability to see how their customers (and potential non-customers!) could interact; might even be dangerous.
Google could not be more confusing. I spend 10 hours a day on the computer, and I will avoid Google stuff because it’s just not worth the time it takes to educate yourself about their nonsense, so I wouldn’t expect anyone less tech savvy to want to bother with them either.
The main problem with Google is that I expect any service they build (beyond their biggest ones) to be shutdown eventually (probably sooner rather than later). It's not worth taking a chance on them anymore.
Except instas sponsored ads are more pernicious (from a mobile ux pov) than fbs including the fact that fb still tracks you on every site. All credit to the Zucc for buying insta and whatsapp since the entire world (especially on whatsapp) are locked in that ecosystem.
I don't have a single non-technical friend who cares. Theyve assumed FB has been doing this all along and that's just the tradeoff for using the service. To that end they're not wrong.
I don't know that it's that simple. Facebook survives because of network effects. Which means it is vulnerable to mass exodus, sort of like a run on the bank. So maybe no one single scandal will bring it down, but a slow, steady trickle of controversy will chip away at the user base until it hits a critical point and spirals to nothing. The continuous publication of evidence about its negative mental health effects, the scandals about political manipulation, and the terrible privacy practices seem to be driving away many of the trend setters, which means the apathetic masses will eventually follow.
Anecdote here: I was talking to a college student who hadn’t heard about the whole Cambridge Analytica to-do. Why? She uses Facebook to check the news, and unsurprisingly it wasn’t coming up on trending news.
That is the whole issue, using one source for news when knowing any source has a percent of bias. Only way around the issue to keep an open mind and actually view new sources that you might or might not like to get a whole picture.
Don't like CNN nor FOX but still skim them for news, articles not TV nor videos.
Actually deleting the account doesn't matter -- if you don't use the account, that's what matters more and here's why.
Facebook's revenue is almost exclusively from advertising. Advertising costs on Facebook depend on reach, PPM, and/or PPC. Facebook advertisers don't pay for "active users" or even "users" -- they pay for PPM/PPC. In other words, your data is relatively worthless if you aren't around to be targeted based upon it.
Despite having a profile, if a user isn't there to see the ads, that means less reach and fewer clicks. When advertisers realize the apparent ineffectiveness of FB advertising, ad rates will decline, reducing revenues for FB. It's unlikely FB would actually run out of money because with reduced scale comes reduced costs -- eventually the entire platform might be operated by Zuckerberg at at a WeWork rented desk after having laid off everyone else.
My point is that your data is pretty much useless if you aren't there to be exploited because of it.
Facebook and Google are huge really for one main reason -- self-service advertising. Some local bike shop can experiment with $200 in PPC super-easily. That local bike shop can't as easily run a radio ad or TV ad and measure the results as easily. So Google and FB have made advertising something that is accessible to those with both lower budgets and lower sophistication. The Coca Colas and General Motors of the world don't care about FB or Google at all -- they have the resources to sponsor the Olympics or national TV shows or pro baseball teams.
Technically that is correct, but I don't really agree in reality. Most users lack the discipline to simply walk away from a still available account when Facebook is a savage drug addiction for so many people.
I downloaded my Facebook archive this weekend and it was a massive 12kb. I know entirely what it means to have a living account and not feed the beast, but I am also the rarest exception that disproves the norm. Deleting a Facebook account means the drug addict cannot relapse.
It doesn't matter. They have the money, people and time to throw at compliance.
GDPR won't dent Facebook in the least. They'll bend where they have to, and no further. They'll pay occasional fines and that won't matter either.
If you take it to an extreme and the only thing they can do is show non-personalized advertising and do zero tracking, they'll still print billions in profit in the EU market. That's what owning most of Europe does for you. Their gross profit margin globally is just under ~87%. Cut that in half and they still have a very profitable business with margins comparable to Google.
Facebook could run entirely untargeted advertising on their platform globally and still yield enviable profit margins. Their platform is extremely tightly run on costs compared to most tech giants.
People talking about doom on this, aren't discussing facts or using logic, they're projecting a revenge fantasy out of emotion. It's driven by a desire to punish Facebook.
Living in EU, and I am thrilled at the party we will have, when 1-2 million people/facebook users will send this letter to FB [1]. I strongly believe that this will hurt them financially (where it actually matters/hurts).
I (try to) sinkhole every tracker, advertiser etc. on my PC and jailbroken iphone. I am sure that I don't block every one, but 90% is better than 0%.
It may keep me busy, but when I start receiving the answers that FB, Amazon, etc. have provided my data to XYZ broker, and then I will be more thrilled when I send THOSE guys the same letter.
Of course after every inquiry they will be receiving a "right to be forgotten" letter.
Hurt them where it does until they learn to respect people and not see them as items to be traded.
Ps: I am not a hater. I enjoyed FB until it started to try to manipulate me e.g. altering my timeline and showing me what THEY deemed is 'good for me' (profitable for them).
Pps: They make enough from advertising. It was excessive greed that got them to start the sell-out.
As someone who’s Jailbroken dozens of iPhones, I understand the appeal. That said, you seem to prefer privacy/security, and I can unequivocally state having a jail broken iphone is a huge step backwards on both.
The idea that a GDPR request will cause Facebook any significant financial harm is laughable. They already have a facility to enable you to download your data, expect a similar tool or portal to appear that will provide you with access to this data. No more, no less, and a couple of months work of a few engineers and interns.
It does matter because if/when they comply with these new regulations, it diminishes large portions of reasons to be mad at them because it will help curb all of the shady stuff they have been doing for more than a decade.
So yes, it does matter, and them being compliant is a good thing.
Every company's destiny is decided by revenue and profit. Facebook will be fine as long as the advertising money keeps coming in. Will it? I don't see why not. Companies don't care about user privacy.
>"Will it? I don't see why not. Companies don't care about user privacy."
Except they do care about their associations and brand management:
'At least three companies -- Sonos, Commerzbank (CRZBF) and Mozilla -- have pulled advertisements off Facebook after a data scandal engulfed the social network. Others are asking tough questions.
Unilever, which owns brands including Dove, Lipton, and Ben & Jerry's, issued a forceful warning to the platforms in February, saying they had become a "swamp" of fake news, racism, sexism and extremism.
"We cannot continue to prop up a digital supply chain which at times is little better than a swamp in terms of its transparency," said Unilever marketing boss Keith Weed'[1]
...Dove ... issued a forceful warning to the platforms in February, saying they had become a "swamp" of fake news, racism, sexism and extremism.
We'll, they're contributing to this [1].
As much as they "hate" the platform, they still love the ad targeting it provides. They all do. Which is probably one of the only reasons these brands even bother.
They just can't help themselves when it comes to being able to push $X towards women only, in their 30's, who have small impressionable children at home, are affluent enough to buy expensive soap, etc, etc, etc.
Many people didn't realize that we still living in a global society that pretty much made by many super large sized Black Pearl[0]s and Jack Sparrow(s) is the captain.
Dear Captain Jack is cool sometimes, and could bring you to the treasure, but you should never trust him that he will taking care of you. In fact, regardless what he said, he don't care about you even a little, all he care about is himself. If you fell off board, he will not bother to save you, unless it's out of coincidence.
So yes, you may follow him closely for an amazing adventure if you want to, but whether or not you will survive in the end, it's all depends on you.
Pure Capitalists, whose values most of the larger companies are run under, care only about the profit. Sometimes negative PR brings additional profit, there is no remorse in such cases.
Facebook's controlling minds don't care about you, they care about if there's reduction in profit [or profit generating ability].
You don't have to abstract this too much. Facebook's "controlling minds" are just one mind: Mark's. Facebook does what Zuckerberg wants it to do. And if he doesn't want to maximize profit, he doesn't have to.
In todays world there's no entity which would leave full control in a single person's hands, neither Facebook nor the US or any other non prehistoric government, although for obvious reasons the public needs to be given a recognizable figure which can be turned into a scapegoat when needed. Should Zuckerberg piss off his top investors, he would be sacked in no time.
It won't. Outside of TechCrunch, HN and NYT, nobody's talking about it. My wife and I are both software engineers, and nobody is talking about it at our respective work places. We were socializing with a large group this weekend, and while FB was brought up, it was only in the context of following a group. Nobody mentioned the "scandal" going on. Not a single person.
Ok, fine, this is anecdata. But we're talking heavily tech leaning people and we didn't hear anything from them.
> I'm still completely convinced that this whole scandal will not damage Facebook a bit, in the long term. Yeah, the stock is going to be a bit lower for some weeks, some people will leave, but the largest part of the Facebook users has not even realised the scandal in full scale
They'll probably be damaged if FB becomes a downmarket social network only used by those who are unsophisticated and unaware. It may not be apparent now, but it will be when some new product captures those users and starts building social momentum that FB can't counter. That's literally how FB got big, and I think they've only been able to so far prevent it happening to them because they've been allowed to buy their competition.
Intelligent and wealthy people care. That's the group of people who made facebook what is it today, and everyone else will eventually leave if the people they admire have left.
