Well, damn. Within a blink of the eye (on the geologic time scale) of me quitting Facebook because of my issue with the company’s seeming inability to treat its users fairly, this comes out.
By making the decision to quit Facebook rather than lean on my elected representatives to do their job, well… hmmm. That’s a good point. But for me, it comes down to who my elected representatives are. While I trust WA Senators Murray and Cantwell to land on the right side of the decision, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, my House representative and the closest connection to me and my life, well, she is a complete loser on this (and most other) regulatory issues. So… yes, the current Facebook issue could be and should be dealt with at a regulatory level. But so should climate change.
Until such a glorious day arrives, I just have to do what I can do at the individual level and carry on. And it seems, unless I’m mistaken here, that that glorious day might arrive sooner if the companies I’m railing against have less clout and less money to peddle their influence. That’s where individual action comes in.
4
I find Ms. Richards' story a very poor choice of evidence in this opinion piece. Here's why:
1) For no good reason, her son disclosed classified information to his mother. By doing so he potentially endangered not only his own life, but also the lives of all the other soldiers in his unit. I don't understand why Ms. Richards thinks that her son "needs her to know [where he is] so he's protected."
2) She disclosed that same classified information to HER mother. Even if we accept that Ms. Richards needs to know her son's location for his own safety (maybe she's an ex-Navy SEAL who has a commando team on speed dial waiting to extract her son at the first sign of danger), her telling her own mother demonstrates extremely poor judgment. What possible need could she have had to do this? (Is Grandma on the commando team?) And, given this abominably poor judgment, why should we trust her opinion on anything else?
3) She now blames Facebook for putting her son's life (not to mention the lives of his comrades) in danger. As evil as Facebook may be, they weren't the ones who put that information out there.
4) She worries that she won't be able to communicate with her family if she doesn't have Facebook. I don't understand this. She's 44, not some millennial who can't imagine a world without smartphones. Telephones, email, snail mail, singing telegram... and she lives literally the next state over from her mother.
There may be a compelling story out there, but this isn't it.
18
Don't assume that anything posted on social media, or posted anywhere with a Facebook logon, is private.
They're in the business of collecting your personal data and making it available to their real customers: organizations that want to profile you and sell you stuff.
There are other ways to communicate that are more secure and don't enthusiastically exploit your personal information.
3
Remember, a long time ago, when you read that book, and you didn't tell anyone about it? The book was actually pretty good, right? And then maybe you told somebody at work, and they said "I read it too." And then you had a real conversation about it. Wasn't that great?
Remember when you went to the ballet, and then went out for coffee, and dessert, and passed by that jazz band in the bar that used to be a laundromat? It was just you, and your date. And it was a great night, and nobody else knew about it in the world.
You can actually live that life again -- it's incredibly easy. The best thing is, you don't actually have to tell anyone you're leaving. If they want to contact you, they'll text you!
15
"But an easy, obvious place for Congress to start is this: to do right by Ms. Richards and her soldier son." What exactly is Mr. Giridharadas proposing that Congress should do?
1
When it became obvious that everyone else was having way more fun than I was and had better toys, I left Facebook.
8
Deleting FB had nothing to do with willpower. If I don’t like a company because of its poor service or unethical actions, I dont use it anymore. As I understand it, fewer clicks=less money for FB.
I call people on the phone, text them, send email with attachments, mail notes and cards, and if the person lives near, Im likely to see them in the neighborhood or meet up for coffee or a meal.
I understand that the mother of a deployed soldier has special circumstances for communicating with him, but surely she could use an above-mentioned way to stay in touch with her mother?
Government and companies should take responsibility, but so should consumers. THEY are supposed to be working for US. If they don’t meet your needs, show it at the ballot box and by your absence at the cash register or online platform.
5
I have left Facebook. I want my real life back where people contact me as an individual if they need to speak or communicate with me. I am no longer responding to how many people 'like' some idea I have posted. I, perhaps, am avoiding becoming a slave only for the time being.
Also the advertising on my site was obnoxious and trying to control advertisers is like controlling fleas with a flyswatter.
61
So why does it have to be a binary decision?
You can delete FB and still work to put their legal hinnie in a sling (I personally think jail time should be part of the solution).
BTW- Both option require willpower. Deletion is the personal kind, changing the law and prosecuting the people running companies that violate the law is a societal willpower (the aggregate sum of personal willpower working for the good of all).
5
To me Facebook is absolutely useless : I never stopped sharing my feelings and thoughts thru texting and emailing, both are flexible and can be used anywhere with my iPhone.
Facebook (yes I have an account I never use) bothers me by asking me to connect. And people who are not my friends but remote acquaintances (friends of friends of "friends" …) bother me with perfectly useless messages that are time consuming as they are of no concern to me.
To me it's almost a riddle to find any use for Facebook in my real life.
I really don't know what would I miss without it
5
I understand that we need government regulation but it is almost to the point where facebooks' advertisements are starting to almost read my mind. :(
1
I deleted my Facebook page soon after hearing Zuckerberg and Sandberg testifying to doing things like abusing their position to intentionally populate Facebook feeds with the false conspiracy theory that George Soros bankrolled the caravan. They did this as payback for Mr. Soros publicly suggesting that if Facebook wants to act like a news media company then they should be held to the same standards of accountability as news media entities. That same false conspiracy theory was cited by the unhinged neo-nazi on many of his social media posts and used as one his reasons to make a "dry run" and murder a dozen innocent people because he couldn't get near Soros. I consider Facebook to have blood on their hands.
I deleted my Facebook and I have zero regrets. I sleep better. It's not hard at all to find other ways to communicate with the people in your life you truly care about. Not hard at all. Facebook is USELESS as a News source. They sell your personal information and lie about.
5
So NY Times, when will you stop allowing readers to access your website through facebook?
9
It's not just FB. Home Advisor has made a business of intercepting searches for various businesses - in my case, a search for Pest Control. My Google search for local pest control brought up Home Advisor which appeared to list a local company on their site. The phone number in this misleading listing took me not to the business but to Home Advisor which refused to give me the actual business number until I gave them my contact information. I told them I wanted NO EMAILS from them. (They had also added an "s" to the business name so searching on that name did not bring up the real company.)
Twenty four hours later I had 5 spam emails from Home Advisor. I called them and complained and requested that they delete my information. They said they couldn't but I could unsubscribe, and it would take 10 days to go into effect. At the rate it was going, at least 50 or more spam emails would have shown up. I insisted they could delete and asked for a supervisor, who also refused, and another manager who finally said he would change my name and information in the listing but couldn't delete it. So far no more emails. And yes, I know you can use a spam filter, but that doesn't solve the problem of email invasion.
I told the pest control folks and the service manager said "So that's why so many of the people referred by Home Advisor are angry at us." Anyone who was sucked into the Home Advisor trap was flooded with spam emails.
5
@MB Have you tried not using Google? They aren't the only search engine out there, you know. There are actually several that don't track its users, such as DuckDuckGo and Ixquick. Try them.
3
@Cindy
I switched to DuckDuckGo about 6 months ago, so my saying "Google search" was a mistake. Sorry. I didn't know about Ixquick. But the problem wasn't the search engine. It was the way Home Advisor appropriated, and changed, the Pest Control company's name and contact information, forcing me, and other searchers, to go through their service. And consequently having their information essentially stolen.
2
You should still delete it. My friends who have no social media accounts are the ones I admire. I’m sucked in to Twitter, because I genuinely feel like I’m contributing to conversations (sometimes. Mostly it’s addiction) but besides that I think you’re definitely better off with books and writing (letters, are probably best, on paper, in the mail. Who doesn’t love a letter!). When you get together with people, if you have book you’re reading, you have something to talk about. If all you’ve been doing is looking at your phone, it’s going to be a very typical, disappointment of a conversation.
5
I left Facebook because I decided to enjoy my own life and the people who are actually in it.
78
New laws to regulate corporate pirates, Judas goats and spies are fine, although getting legislation with teeth in it out of our corrupt and technologically ignorant and backwards Congress will prove a great challenge, I suspect. That aside, it will also take a long time, begging this question: What to do in the meantime?
In the meantime I will “starve the beast”.
After studying Facebook for a few months to see how it worked and learn what it actually was (a clever yet insidious means of self-betrayal) I decided to eliminate it from my life — and did. And after learning that Facebook had bought Instagram and owned WhatsApp I steered well clear of those as well. So, the Facebook Empire is embargoed, at least in my insignificant infinitesimal corner of the universe.
Definitely a case of “less is more”.
5
Facebook Messenger as a stand alone APP is the source of many problems for me.
Constant hoax about people sending false friend request.
And then people parading around using your name.
2
The sad thing is I want to share the nonsensity of this article on Facebook! It's hard to accept that I have somehow become automated to "share" everything! Even when it is something that perpetuates a fundamentally flawed reasoning as to the validity of Facebook .
3
By this argument, divesting in Apartheid just hurt the divestors? Let's rely on our completely dysfunctional government to regulate Facebook and protect us from things we can just unsubscribe to ourselves? Personal responsibility isn't what it used to be...
Delete Facebook. Delete Instagram. Delete it all. Live your life.
6
I don't have a facebook account. I'm doing just fine.
7
Before deleting your Facebook account (which you should do now - you could join again if governments ever get around to seriously regulating it), you should review what data FB has collected on you and shared with others.
https://socialgoals.co.uk/blog/how-to-review-your-facebook-data-settings
With luck it won't prove too harmful to yourself and your family and friends.
1
Big Data and the easily hackable content we share online turns unwanted influencers into easy targets for the thug hordes whose raw criminal activities get paid for by the almighty kleptocratic ruler bandits of our times. Our data became the loot, marked on our devices or in the cloud with tracking devices, turning us by our voice wakes into moving human neon signs, that the Big Buck vultures of modern data mining, trading, & hacking warfare can now pretty simply prey on.
Nice distractive theater from this real threat with a Wall charade to protect us with practically zero added effectiveness against largely a make-believe threat.
It's a well-suppressed secret that on a worldwide scale (environmental) activists and journalists are much more endangered than soldiers. They are the ones marked and targeted for harassment, obstruction, sabotage, or death while hardly protected. Serving in the US army on the other hand is rapidly on its way to become one of the safest professional endeavors available.
Meanwhile the new supercomputers being developed will be able to crack even the most complex passwords with which we'll try to protect ourselves in vain?
We simply lost already, unless we become too many too aware just in time to turn it impossible to get us all blackmailed or thwarted into silence, sidelined, further cost- and debt-imprisoned-for-life, eliminated.
It's life or serfdom in the battle of we the people vs. the 'pee the people' thieves, oppressors, and psychopaths.
2
That's not the problem. The problem is the enormous hole in people that drives them to constantly seek attention in a public forum.
Yes. Walk away from Facebook. You don't need it. Look to the people around you, not some stranger on the other side of the planet.
7
I remember a few years ago when there were rumors circulating that Facebook was going to start charging users, and people were horrified, and Facebook issued reassuring statements that they would do nothing of the kind. Users breathed sighs of relief, not thinking about the fact that Facebook is a business that has to pay its employees and generate a return to its shareholders somehow. That "somehow" is to monetize our eyeballs and every piece of data that they can hoover up about us.
This is the choice we made. How many people would stay on Facebook or Twitter if it cost 50 bucks a month? How much time would you spend on Facebook if a meter was ticking and billing you by the minute? In the very early days of the Internet, there were services that connected you to other people and to information that billed by the hour. That business model didn't work.
I'm not saying there should be no regulation and no limits. I am saying that if we want to have access to something like Facebook without paying for it, we can't be surprised that the people providing it to us are going to need some other way to generate the money it costs to create it.
3
Classic example of why libertarianism and Republican "small government" approach fails. People don't do the right thing, even if they have the best intentions, which FB never has. Complex systems have outcomes that are not only unpredictable but are often unimaginable.
3
Never had Facebook. Never wanted to have Facebook. Never will. If the people I care about want to reach me, they can email, text or call.
The surprising thing is how much Facebook knows about me despite my abstinence. So I’m sure I’m vulnerable to their failures - sort of the opposite of herd immunity.
5
Facebook is useful to special-interest groups' exchange of information. Local bird-watchers' when/where alerts, for one example.
1
FB could care less about your activism as to make FB a better saner platform as long as you stay on as a user. It's all about the data.
If you want to make a difference delete your account and have real conversations with the people in your life.
4
Asking Facebook not to exploit user data would be like asking Halliburton not to drill for oil. It's their essence.
If you really care about someone, you will email or call them. Have a real conversation instead of clicking "like."
Delete Facebook. Reclaim your brain and your life.
6
Utter nonsense. Facebook is for narcissists, voyeurs, time wasters and fools. Thanks to them, Zuckerberg is proclaimed a genius and a tech whiz.
11
Most readers still don't seem to understand that government oversight and regulation is required to reign in the excesses of corporate America.
It should not be up to the consumer to 'police' social media companies from selling our privacy to the highest bidder without limits, including the Russians.
The past decades have shown that government has sold us out to corporate interests. It is time we demand they do their job.
60
@erik you aren’t the consumer, you are the product.
22
What's really hilarious is all my friends who've told me they're deleting Facebook — and joining Instagram!
35
Dumb article, you are by no means obligated to maintain a Facebook account. Boycotting products is an effective to way to effectuate change in corporate culture. When the bottom-line is affected then positive changes will inevitably occur.
It is a bit naive to think that the small number of users who feel slighted by Facebook's privacy policies will close their accounts in enough numbers to actually impact anything but since our government has largely been unable to do anything about it it's time for the users to take matters into their own hands.
5
Quit Facebook in 2012. No regrets.
Before my bank started giving me a monthly credit score update, I periodically would check my credit score with CreditKarma. It was my impression that CK made their revenue by marketing various credit cards to their users. I was ok with that. About a year ago I saw a notice that their user policy had changed. I checked it out. Lo and behold, CK now sends (sells?) all their user’s credit scores to Facebook. Evidently FB does their best to track users' credit score histories. FB and CK users should know this. Never used FB but dumped CK immediately.
2
It’s amazing, the lengths people go to in order to justify staying on social media. Facebook is in no way essential, nor is it mandatory. People stay on Facebook because they are addicted to the dopamine hits that every “like” gives them. Admit this to yourself and you will have taken the first step on your way to freedom from Facebook.
8
It is not enough to simply delete your account. You should unfriend everyone in your network first.
3
I think doing away with Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms is a good start, what redeeming valve they have is beyond me.
2
...I quit Facebook last month...I don't care what they do with their crummy platform now...no longer an issue for me...
3
You know what, I just don’t get it. Why are you trying to convince yourself that Facebook or any other social media is necessary? Why are you looking for reasons to justify offering your life on a platter so someone else can profit? This isn’t about government regulation, this is about you controlling your own life. Again, I just don’t get it.
5
I left Facebook.
Guess what? I now suffer social death and have NO IDEA (local media has been decimated) what is going on in my town.
Everybody else is still on there, up to no good.
Real fix.
14
@Nancy
Join the League of Women Voters and be an Observer at your City and County Council meetings.
People will be coming to you for information. And you will have it...because you were there.
11
5 or 10% of users deleting Facebook will indeed certainly not fix the social media scourge plaguing this country and world, our economy, our businesses, our national security and our future generations, but the US Congress shutting down Facebook as a monopolistic and criminal fraud, and insisting that its executives be prosecuted for racketeering and treason, would at least delete the megabillion dollar Facebook scam that has so far had a free pass to loot the citizenry, addict the masses, and corrupt the government.
5
Yes the burden falls on each of us. Get off the juice. The rest will fall into place. New providers will come. If enough delete Facebook .Your son
2
I deleted it and am glad. This mother at the beginning of the piece shared military secrets and now worries deleting this surveillance tool is going to cut her off from her family? Ever hear of the telephone? Geez. Let’s get real and just say no.
2
Just delete it anyway! You can live without it.
3
Go ahead, delete Facebook. Everyone is on Instagram anyways. Insta is owned by Facebook? Guess what, the Zuck always wins.
2
Big Data and the easily hackable content of our web correspondence, dating back a decade or more, of us poor folks whose big data make us suspects of unwanted influencer value to the hordes of thugs whose raw criminal activities get paid for by the almighty kleptocratic ruler bandits of our times, have become the loot, marked by now, all of it, with tracking devices turning its writers into moving human neon signs, that the wolves and vultures of modern Putinesque, and merciless Mercerplus and Kochtopus warfare can now effortlessly prey on.
Nice that we're distracted from this real threat with a useless Wall charade to protect us with practically zero effectiveness against basically zilch of a threat, but hey, cute beaded steel curtain!
It's a well-suppressed secret that (especially environmental) activists and journalists are much more endangered species than soldiers. They are the ones earmarked and targeted for harassment, obstruction, sabotage, or death. Serving in the American army on the other hand is rapidly on its way to become one of the safest professional endeavors available.
Meanwhile the new supercomputers being developed will be able to crack even the most complex passwords with which we'll try to protect ourselves in vain.
We already lost, unless we rapidly become too many too aware just in time to not keep getting mass sidelined, cost- & debt-imprisoned-for-life, or even mass slaughtered.
The state of collective awareness affairs don't look good for now.
1
Deleting a Facebook is a moral obligation (not impulse) that goes well beyond mishandling privacy issues. Destroying democracies around the world using Facebook (and other social m (edia platforms) is a very serious danger to most societies. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise to see leaders such as Trump, Putin, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Orban, and Netanyahu get elected because these platforms provide a huge advantage to narcissists and to populism. These leaders have exploited these platforms by equating “alternative facts” to real facts”, “fake news” to real news and by attacking or limiting the media. Facebook is continuously destroying investigative journalism, which is a requirement for a functional democracy. According to Pew Research Center, 45 percent of US adults get at least some of their news from Facebook (rather than from verified sources of information) and in many countries it’s even more than that. Facebook is obviously also serving as platform for hacking elections and disinformation around the globe (another “problem” for democracy), which according to a former Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos is still very possible. I recommend a very interesting article on Facebook and democracy in the Atlantic - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/.
People shouldnt be sending anything outside of a secure network that they cant afford to have hacked or mined for content whether it be via Facebook or email or whatsapp. Certainly not classified information.
That said, Facebook goes a long way to mislead its users about the security of their content. When users set privacy setting to only show their content to their “friends”, many of them believe that excludes Amazon, Walmart and Cambridge Analytica.
39
Back to the phones. Call your representatives. Mine is hopeless.
2
“Individual action is great, but count me as skeptical that we will collect enough of us to change the behavior of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world,” Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, who is working on emerging bipartisan legislation, told me. “This is literally what government is for. This is what public policy is for. We need a federal law.”
It is the governments responsibility to regulate large, multi-national corporations. Corporate responsibility through public regulation is the only way to sustainability and good corporate governance. Corporations have historically pushed the narrative that it is individual responsibility (ie willpower) that is the cause/solution our problems and to keeping our habitat clean.
Indeed, the container industry themselves underwrote the "Keep America Beautiful" so-called public service ads of the crying Indian in the 1970's that helped start the environmental movement in order to put the blame on individuals not throwing away (recycling) their millions of containers. The litter is the peoples fault not theirs! Instead of government regulation preventing their manufacture in the first place we're being buried by plastic "individual use" containers thereby enriching the plastics industry and being told it's our collective individual fault for not disposing of them properly.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-indian-crying-environment-ads-pollution-1123-20171113-story.html
1
I quit Facebook because of personal integrity. I don't want to support a company that invades my privacy and pimps out my information to anyone and everyone who has a buck. I know that Facebook will survive without me but that's not the point. Yes, we need laws to punish this company and others like it, unless you think the ability to see duck-faced selfies all day long is somehow worth your privacy and integrity.
6
To delete or not to delete? To me it is a silly question. My social media consists of one email address, one mobile phone number and the occasional visit to NYT like I am doing now. Am I missing anything important? I think not. I am in regular contact with friends and family all over the world via email and phone and am not a slave to innocuous drivel that so many seem addicted to. One doesn't need to delete something so unnecessary for daily life. Enjoy your digital enslavement whilst I enjoy my cuppa and a good book.
4
Maybe facebook should be like smoking: legal but extremely uncool.
3
Soldiers should not tell anyone, including their parents, military secrets.
4
When I read in NYT endless stories about people who signed on Facebook and similar plarforms, and who are now worried about the confidentiality, I cannot help but feel sorry for their naïveté. Cyberspace is a jungle of roaming hackers, unsolicited advertisers, international secret services, and long-nosed financial authorities.
One cannot be rid of them, like Goethe's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" who cried that he cannot be rid of the ghosts that he invoked.
25
The statement that it is about will power might be more convincing if it were not well known that Facebook has based its business plan and programming on creating addiction to the platform. The idea that willpower has much to do with Facebook use flies in the face of their business plan, the trestimony of former senior employees, and common sense.
Facebook will quit what it is doing when the Congress tells it to, and backs that with enormous fines for non-compliance. Until then, it will happily sell advertising and give away its psychic opiods to the masses to get their data.
Eric Segal said it long ago in "Love Story": Harvard men think they can get away with anything, as long as they are sincere. Zuckerberg is a pusher.
3
Jaron Lanier ("Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now') is right: Facebook and other social media platforms are anger amplifiers that lead to tribalism and societal division. But it is too difficult to expect most people to leave Facebook; I'm still onboard. Instead of deleting our accounts, we can use them with an awareness of their dangers and what they're doing to us. We can avoid angry political memes and commentary that disparages those who disagree with us. We can keep Facebook safe for birthday greetings, vacation selfies, and kitten videos.
2
Deleting Facebook is just looking away. Sure, it’s good for the soul, but closing our eyes to one of the most pressing examples of the unchecked power of social media and (more importantly) internet giants is—on a societal level—goin to solve nothing. What facebook is doing to us is a social issue, sure. But the fact that Facebook can build a business model on stealing private info, get caught, and largely shrug it off is a political one.
4
I finally deleted and gave up on facebook about nine months ago. I am the age of the soldiers grandmother in the article. I now text and get quicker responses (though extremely brief) from my adult children. I learned to use a smart phone. I stopped looking at the pages of people at the extreme edges of my life and I have remembered the gist of their stories like the plots of books I have read. Live in the real world, it is better.
14
We need to get used to - and indeed enjoy - the fact that privacy doesn't exist any more; having said that the need to use fiscal (and other) policies to restrain excessive corporate power is a no brainer
3
For my personal and professional (research scientist) life, there is one tool I need, and one tool only: e-mail. It amazes me to think that someone may need anything else.
13
The author makes a great case for regulating FB, and the like, in the same vain as public utilities are regulated. These platforms are now essential service for the public- essential for economic and social existence for many.
Never enough users of FB will ever unsubscribe to make a dent in its current revenue model which includes selling users' personal data to highest bidder. "Delete FB' is a straw man argument favored by some who I suspect want to distract pubic attention from the real problem.
Even with regulation FB will continue to make money by selling space to advertisers. The regulation will apply to the use (or abuse) of the users' personal data.
In the current political environment though it is not realistic to expect any such action from the Congress, let alone regulation of such powerful businesses as FB, Google and others. The time however will arrive, when the public is sufficiently tired of the antics of these businesses, that it will vote for a Congress and a President who will agree with the idea that regulation for the sake or preserving real privacy is a good thing for the sake of social trust.
4
Privacy concerns will become more acute in future; but that will not be because of Facebook or any one social media company; but because of a business model that is based on using data as the primary fuel that gets all the profits. This applies to all media companies, rather all companies because every company is a media company as well. Facebook is just a shiny object that everyone finds it easy to talk about. With better and faster computing technologies the problem will only become bigger.
3
Can I say it's both, willpower and regulation?
Willpower: Whether it's Facebook or xyz, drastically reduce or stay off social media (do these comments count as social media :)?)
Regulation: Not everyone is going to quit Facebook, period. Or "child of Facebook" when it emerges. For instance, Facebook groups provide useful services -- as in the group on the rural island I live on that lets people stay in touch about say where coyotes are being seen.
So we need both. It's not an either/or.
5
-----"he had kept her updated as he traveled to what she described as a dangerous foreign base whose location she was supposed to keep secret. She had then sent those location updates to her mother using Facebook Messenger. Now she wonders who has that data."
This particular instance is not a Facebook problem but a revealing of classified information by a service member. That is a breach of operational security.
16
I think the author is spinning his wheels. What reasonable person would persist in using social media after the opening example?
Then again, there are some of us who never used it to begin with. If you value your privacy, why let the world in and allow someone else to hold the keys?
This is the same theme Thoreau discussed more than 150 years ago: "...wherever a man goes, men will pursue and paw him with their dirty institutions, and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their desperate odd-fellow society."
17
Facebook is fine for sharing family photos.
It is a terrible medium for discussing politics. The problem is that political problems are complex. We cannot avoid people making bad decisions. But our social networks should not facilitate the superficiality of thought that leads to bad decisions.
Facebook and Twitter have oversimplified political life.
One of President Trump's greatest weaknesses is his reliance on Twitter, which encourages the promulgation of half-baked thoughts.
A president needs to reflect before disseminating. He needs to seek advice from experts. He needs to choose his words well. Twitter encourages none of those things.
Voters, too, need to reflect about complex political issues. It is not the slogan, "Build the Wall" that needs to be promulgated to all people on the list of friends.
People need to discuss the nitty-gritty of policy. And with a thoughtful discussion would come a realization that the extreme views don't work. We don't want open borders or unnecessary cruelty to immigrants already here.
We need well-designed policies that nudge in the right direction, not coercion. We need compromise, not winning for one of the two in-groups.
On Facebook, you can like somebody else's contribution, tell others to pass it on.
It is better to create your own content. Express your own thoughts. And recognize that all human reason is fallible, so be tolerant of others.
2
Let's get down to the basic issue: there is no free lunch.
Facebook, like any business, serves the interests of its customers. Who are the customers? A "customer" is always defined as the party that provides the money that pays the salaries and keeps the lights on.
Are Facebook users the customers? No, they pay nothing. They are the product, being sold to the actual customers: the advertisers. Remember that the customers interests will be served by any business that wants to stay in business. Nobody worries about the interests of a product. That's just a thing to be sold.
Want to be treated like a thing to be sold? Keep using Facebook. Now you know the situation, you are making this decision of your own free will. No crying later.
23
Would like to see someone with business/marketing expertise run a simple calculation, an estimate of what facebook will lose if everyone in the US who uses facebook stays off for 24 hours. Will it have an impact on the company's revenue? How much?
4
I don't really see any difference between what Facebook is doing and if the phone company just recorded every conversation, picked them apart, and sold them along with your number. No, Facebook should be prohibited from utilizing any data unless the user expressly permits it. Of course each user can adjust their privacy settings to determine the larger or smaller universe they will permit to view their content, but beyond that these social network companies should be precluded from harvesting data. I know that will kill their business model without charging users for the service, but that's life.
6
@The Other Alan
Then you don't understand:
1. the phone companies;
2. Facebook;
3. Russia + Putin;
4. the internet;
5. democracy + elections;
6. mainstream news and media;
7. Mr. No-Collusion Trump.
1
How about never getting on Facebook in the first place? Or any of its social media cousins? Sort of like never taking that first dose of opioids. Works fine for me.
Of course, if you're already a user, by all means delete. That won't protect your privacy in any global way, of course. Email, cell phone use, most any website you access, perhaps the car you drive will all provide excessive information about you and your activities to corporations only too eager to monetize the information. But a slimmer online footprint is still better than than a Facebook-fattened one.
That doesn't obviate the case for strong government regulation of online services to better protect what privacy we have left. The EU generally is doing a better job of this (e.g., the "right to be forgotten").
Hint to the Democrats for 2020: online privacy, and reining in the power of big e-corporations, are "relatable" issues to people in every corner of the country. Make this part of your platform for the next election.
15
@rungus Me too. Never used Facebook. I survive just fine. People expect something for nothing. They need to stop that. It's not realistic and wallowing in delusion just sets you up to be a victim.
4
Socialize facebook, provide transparent policy on data, its destruction, and independently vet that it's done properly. If we can't pay for it turn Zuck upside down til the last ill-gotten pennies fall out.
Privacy is impossible with this much money to be made.
3
@Simon You want Trump in charge of Facebook? When the government shuts down, Facebook shuts down. Actually that sounds like a benefit. Yeah let's do it!
2
I think as consumers we do have some power and rejecting a product that we consider unethical, if it's done in mass, can certainly send a message. But yes, I also agree, that it shouldn't just be up to the consumer. FB is a big enough problem that the issue has to be tackled by various angles. Mostly, I deleted my account because, to me, the ugliness of the platform was exposed. I seized to see it as a friendly meeting place with loved ones, and more as a channel for political manipulation, brainwashing, fake robot accounts, privacy violations, and destructive discourse. I really just got tired of it. We don't need Facebook to be connected to those we love.
7
Giridharadas poses as a leftish social critic, but, in fact, he's always out for the main chance. In his book he poses as a critic of what he calls "Marketworld," sort of a brave truth teller about the greed and hypocrisy of the economic elite. But the truth is, he can't wait to join them. Hence his TED talks and multi-thousand dollar speaker's fee. Mark Z. would turn green if we all individually and in mass resolved to delete Facebook, but Giridharadas wants to make understand that just won't do.
5
Thank god I don't need Facebook to interact with my family. Phone call or dinner anyone?
16
@Ian. One member of my extended family refuses to use other means of communication instead of FB. In my opinion, he has chosen to delete himself from my life— which is his right. I don’t worry much about his problems if he can’t bother to share them with me!
6
"Smart" phones make people stupider and lazier and, therefore, easier to manipulate.
Social media replaces our shared progressive democratic values with the values of warring tribes.
Neither is going to go away however. Both, like religion and drugs, are addictions that most people can't control.
So I'm glad that genetics and statistics predict that I won't be alive that much longer.
I'm also glad that genetics seems to have given me the ability to avoid addiction.
1
Go ahead, delete it! I did, and I haven't missed it even for a nanosecond. There are other ways to keep in touch with people, you know.
Deleting Facebook really has helped lessen my electronic fingerprint. No one is following me anymore, and fewer advertisers are posting their little ads on every page I visit. I no longer get "unfriended" because of my political views, and I no longer have to block trolls and others who are abusive.
It really is nice to be more invisible!
80
@sharky44
Now, if 3 billion Facebook users around the world would follow suit.
7
I have not (so far) deleted my account. But I was warning friends about problems with Facebook years before the 2016 elections, and I am deeply concerned.
So, instead, I spend very little time on the platform. I do check it, once every two or three days, particularly to see if there are any "private" messages (ha!). But I never "like" or "share" anything, and only very rarely post.
Seems to me this is hitting (in my puny way) the company where it hurts, since everything I do on the platform is "data" that the company can later sell to a third party. I'm doing my best to give them next to no new data.
2
I was encouraged to join Facebook in 2006 by a friend studying Right Whales in grad school so that I could follow her travels. After a few weeks I found another way to follow her and deleted my account. I am so glad I did. I also don't Instagram or WhatsApp, or Tweet and I still keep up with my family and friends all over the world. I pay for the NY Times, my local papers, and donate to my local NPR stations, and I am quite happy with my news. I don't have to be the product for Facebook or the rest of these "free services" to sell. I am satisfied paying my own way for the services I use. The problem is a business model that tells the public they can get something for nothing and billions of people believe the con, just like millions believed the con and voted for Trump. Why in the world would someone put their son in danger by putting in writing for all the world to see where he was going on a secret military mission? Can't keep a secret? Remember the WWII poster, "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Don't put anything on the internet that you don't want the world to know for the rest of your life. That has been an obvious caveat for at least a decade. And you don't get something for nothing. That has been rule of life for millennia.
14
I feel very sorry that Taunya doesn't utilize or recognize that we still have Email for remaining in contact with remote friends and family. It still works very well and is easy to use safely. We don't need the noise and ridiculous volume of unnecessary chatter found on Facebook. Those addicted to Facebook or other like media need to assess their value system and alter their lives accordingly.
10
I deactivated Facebook in Jan. 2016 because their algorithms kept bringing up inflammatory or annoying subject matter in my feed, rather than the things I wanted to see. This made me waste too much time on the site looking for the content I wanted, and I just did not have time. There were things that also were starting to feel like creepy privacy invasions and I didn't have time to obsessively manage my profile and settings. I figured I'd reactivate the site when my life calmed down. At the time, I couldn't imagine leaving FB forever!
But, then, I was truly happier without Facebook. It was the simplest thing I've ever done to increase my overall happiness.
And every time I read about each of Facebook's egregious privacy violations, I'm so relieved not to be a part of it anymore.
For all its flaws, FB was at least easy to leave.
14
We should still delete Facebook despite the writer's objections to that. Remaining on Facebook and waiting for the government to take action to rain Facebook in is not wise.
Remaining on that and other social platforms is too risky and not worth waiting for the time when there will be significant legal change that would make online social media safer.
17
While I certainly agree that social media needs legal restraints, I am not in favor of this fashionable abdication of user responsibility. We should not view personal accountability as a burden to be avoided, rather as an adult privilage and an empowering practice that sustains our ability to feel whole. Freedom from responsibility is not freedom, freedom is in being able to make choices as a conscious agent. A key component of personal freedom is the right to be informed by the consequences of one’s actions, so that we can reap the rewards of our wise actions and learn from the unskillful ones. Depriving a person of this circuit of feedback is at the heart of what makes social media so emotionally destructive. Social media is not synonymous with communication, instead it is a stylish distortion of communication which burns our ability to empathize and emotionally co-regulate in exchange for a tiny thrill brought on by the disorienting illusion of communication without the consequences, to name one of its many addictive components. Many forms of addictive pleasure rely on temporarily disconnecting us from the full brunt of reality, and often by cutting off the supply of something otherwise inescapably ever-present, in this case emotional feedback, in other substances, say, oxygen or cortisol. The author appears too close to the subject, having had their values shaped in the image of the very product they are seeking to control.
4
The woman quoted prefers to endanger her son by possibly announcing his military position, for what? Just because she doesn’t want to place phone calls to her friends and family?
So, Social media addiction is more powerful than a mother’s natural urge to protect her son?
We are well and truly a mess now....social media addiction should be seen as a public health emergency (not to mention a potential public safety emergency).
8
I deleted FB about seven months ago because I found it to enjoyable and thereby time consuming. And that addiction was tough to kick for about two weeks.
Now I comment on a articles in a few newspapers. The main difference it’s the article not a familiar person I am corresponding too. Therefore I don’t feel an obligation or a graciousness to check an account.
But I do think that members of social media platforms should not have their contact and personal info shared or sold to third parties nor should platforms be allowed to ask members for consent in such sharing or sales.
5
When did individual action and government action become mutually exclusive?
12
This is a message for all you who have given sage advice here please understand the this goes further than Facebook,every time you use your phone your server is now selling information to a third party which can be any yahoo who could find you within a radius of 100 blocks. This is a legislative problem, Facebook, INSTAGRAM and other media platforms as well as the phone you care around are selling your information this isn't okay. We are paying for the our phones, but it does matter they're telling anyone with the money how to find where we are at at any given moment. This isn't about insecurity this is about a need for oversight on profiteers we didn't even know were doing this until journalist thankfully wrote about it. This is also about Corporate liars who promise us security and then allow others to invade our information. What are the solutions people?
13
@multnomah9
disable the location setting on your phone. I only use it now when traveling and need it for directions.
I quit all social media.
Once I came to realize that Facebook helped elect Trump, I decided it was not needed.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the lot are diversions. Humans are lemmings, often.
Twitter is just ugly. Nothing redeeming about any of it.
Instead, I quote John Prine and suggest you go up to a real, live human being and say, “hello in there.”
If you really want to love yourself, don’t be part of our culture of endless narcissism.
86
@El Jamon, So excellently stated.
6
Serious regulation would be great, but the problem is that as is the case with oil companies and big banks, the profits to be made by disregarding the regulations will almost always far outstrip the possible costs of getting caught.
Social media have become our town squares. They are the spaces in which we discuss the issues of the day, find people who share our interests and otherwise constitute a civil society. When such spaces are run as commercial enterprises it produces perverse incentives that amplify the voices of the already rich and powerful and that sow hateful divisions among the rest of us.
Social media companies are de facto communications monopolies. They could be broken up under anti-trust legislation, but on its own this would not address the real problems raised above. They should be broken up but also transformed into publicly owned non-commercial utilities.
The libertarian vision of the internet that has made people like Marc Zuckerburg billionaires is revealing itself as a social nightmare. It is time to consider a socialist or at lest non-capitalist alternative.
1
If Ms. Richards had contacted her son by phone, would the conversation have gone any differently? Would Ms. Richards feel more secure with a telephone line than an internet cable? If you feel the content of a conversation is going to endanger your military loved one, you shouldn't be having the conversation in the first place. You certainly shouldn't share the conversation with anyone else. Facebook has nothing to do with this basic principle.
I have one family member where whenever I ask his father how he's doing, the father simply says "He's doing army stuff." This has gone on for over a decade now. I would never ask nor expect to hear anything that might endanger his life. Him and his family are smart enough to know better than to tell me. They sure aren't posting the information on the internet either. Military aside, we're talking about common digital literacy.
If you transmit information over the world wide web, that information is no longer private. By definition, you've crowd sourced your data through an unknown number of servers and access points. Facebook is an especially bad actor but you shouldn't trust any outlet completely. Internet security is a game of deterrence. Security experts want to make stealing information more difficult than the information is worth. You're not going to prevent a determined thief though. You're bargaining value rather than privacy.
6
@Andy
While a friend’s son was deployed, she would smile and say “he is at work.”
1
I disagree.
The author seems to encourage the frustration of those who think "Who am I? Just one person, what difference does it make?" The point of exiting Facebook is to take a personal stand by getting personally invovled, albeit in a small way. Those who boycott advertisers because they disagree with the content of a tv program used to ask the same What can one person do? The answer is obvious: the action of a single person may serve as an example to others to take the same action. Eventually, the boycotts work. Ask Bill O*Reilly.
The senior management of Facebook has no incentive to police itself. The business model encourages a 'free forum'. even if the freedom of expression is weaponized to disrupt the exact freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
Farewell Facebook. Wish I could say it was nice to know you...but it was not.
15
In real life, I would be surprised if the average woman had more than three good friends and the average man had more than one.
12
@Ed People seem to use Facebook largely to convince themselves that they have more actual friends than they do. A friend is someone you meet up with in real life and talk to on the phone. Everyone else is an acquaintance at best.
8
Validating and expressing yourself through social media is almost second nature to many people of the Facebook age and beyond. I think these channels have a way of dumbing down and diluting proper communication as well as playing to people's weaknesses and insecurities.
13
Since St. Ronnie we have been brainwashed to look for private and personal solutions to public and political problems. We are taught that the only solution to companies that try to defraud us is to be vigilant and smart (and probably pay some other company to help us with our vigilance). Our laws push us in this direction by allowing companies to settle charges of injustice by paying money, not admitting guilt, and thereby forcing each victim to make a case from scratch.
One way to make Facebook behave is regulation. Another way would be for government to fund free facebook and search apps that would not allow advertisements, would make public their policies for making data available and their algorithms, and would be maintained and developed by interested volunteers who were averse to founding business empires. Keeping such people in check so that money can be made from social media is a major problem that the moneymakers have dealt with successfully -- so far.
The joy of making something useful and excellent can motivate and produce better products than the joy of making money, and has frequently done so. This is because its products are untainted by the necessity of being able to charge for them and protect them against being stolen or used without paying.
It would be nice to browse in an environment where you were not constantly reminded of the last few things you investigated and decided to buy or not buy.
4
I am a person who does not consciously use Facebook for many of the reasons sited in this article, but Facebook is so intertwined with the internet that it is almost impossible to avoid. Its presence is almost every where you look. But the problem of Facebook, lose of privacy, its use to spread propaganda and dangerous information, has existed ever since the introductions of the telephone and perhaps since the printing press. With the internet the problems are magnified exponentially. Government and companies themselves are charged with controlling the desire of individuals to use the internet for nefarious ends.
Perhaps there is only one answer as always, to accept some form of surveillance and targets the use of words that indicate abuse. I have a sense that those who wish to create harm on the internet by one means or another will do so as they manuver around regulations, but as long as people are who they are there will be abuse.
1
@just Robert
Um, it's quite easy to avoid Facebook. And it is not intwined or even ubiquitous with the internet. You ought utilize ad blockers and ghostery - as well as vpns in many instances, apart from the evils of Facebook.
2
"Or is telling people to delete their accounts on a platform to which there are few alternatives.."
Of course there are alternatives. What an absurd statement. Did anyone have friends prior to Facebook?
56
I am deeply disturbed by the premise of this article: that we need any of these social networking sites. The author accepts and seems to bless how dangerously addicted we are to our cell phones, laptops, tablets, and online "social lives." None of us need Facebook, WhatsApp, or any alternative to it. Buying into the idea that we can't simply log off is horribly dangerous. We, as a society, were less fractioned, more in tune with our actual real life surroundings before any of these little social networking schemes existed. We are now willing to give up everything, including our personal privacy and safety, to get our daily fix of gossip. What does that say about us as people and as a society? There is simply no government regulation or "fix" to this problem. It will NEVER be foolproof and by logging in, you opt to give us things that I find very precious. In the last year, I have deleted Facebook, Linked in, and pretty much every non essential online account I've ever had. I have a single email account for work and am just fine and feel more connected and mentally healthy than ever.
And I don't want to hear all the excuses from people who can't live without these apps. I also have family in the military, am 35 years old and a professional. If I can live without them, so can you.
47
"But don’t count Ms. Richards among the growing ranks of people deleting Facebook. 'All it does is punish me,' she said. 'It doesn’t punish Facebook. It doesn’t change anything. It cuts me off from my family.'
I'm dismayed that messages that Facebook advertises as secure turn out not to be. But surely Ms. Richards has other ways to communicate with her son, perhaps without knowing militarily sensitive details? How about good ol' email, without including location info?
15
My problem with Facebook is not one of lack of privacy, but of destructive algorithms. What we saw during the 2016 election, the effect of siloing people via Facebook marketing, providing ads that are dubious in nature, and the cult of other peoples lives making our own look shabby in comparison. The net effect of "social media" is anything but social, it is trapping us in our own beliefs, keeping us unchallenged.
We are not facebook's customers, but their product.
34
You are describing a monopoly. But the problem is bigger. On the users end Facebook is tool for social interaction, for many a very important tool. On Facebook's end it is a money making machine that milks user data without ever telling users what exactly is being milked. On top of that it is an unregulated medium where facts and falsehoods are traded with equal currency. Legislation is needed to consider all of these aspects.
14
Not sure of the premise of this article.
I quit Facebook a few months ago and have never felt more connected to my family. Instead of spending hours on Facebook I have rediscovered that my device has a phone on which to call friends and relatives. How nice it is to hear their voices including intonation, its something that Facebook never could match.
When I want to stay electronically connected I simply write an email, if I want instant responses I text. And yes, I add pictures if I want them to see something special.
Quitting Facebook allows me more time doing everything I really enjoy and even have a little extra time for errands and projects around the house.
In all, deleting Facebook was a little gift of time I gave myself.
89
@Greg Nowell The premise of this article-- that we need Facebook or an alternative - is absurd.
25
@Greg Nowell
I deleted mine over a year ago. There is no purpose for it other than to feed narcissistic personalities. One thing it does is show you how stupid and uninteresting most people are. I had heard people posted pictures of their lunch on Facebook and was shocked to find out it was actually true and quite common .
The News York Times and the Washington Post have far more useful information and good forums. There are also countless other websites dedicated to all kinds of interesting topics and hobbies... including food if thats your thing. It's not mine.
11
In my many years on Facebook, I found that the "friends" that they offered me became more and more inappropriate and frankly more and more suspicious.
Rather than put up with this any longer, I chose to leave Facebook and, in so doing, finding my friends in the real world such as at the gym, on the phone and on other internet programs such as Youtube, Skype, etc.
And, yes, rejoining the New York Times online community!
It may not be as easy as sticking with the Zuck's baby, but it seems far safer!
26
I thought I was a smart facebook user. Other than my name, I never added where I grew up or lived, never put who I was married to, never identified siblings, cousins, even made my birthday one day off and miles off in years. I went to school at the place with the books and worked at the place with the trees. Yep. I was sticking it to the man, none of my data was for sale. People often complimented me on how fun my feed was, all original material, no sharing outside content, what a wit I am.
Then last week I read that Zuckerburg was unhappy with the coverage his company was getting from the NYT. And based on what they have been caught doing, called out for, apologized for and then turned around and continued to do, I realized I had zero confidence he might not decide to do something about it. I spent some time thinking about it and this past weekend, I deleted my account, Instagram too.
It's not just about my data. It's about not wanting to participate in an ecosystem that one man controls with impunity. I'm not sure congress or the courts can fix that but maybe capitalism can. Delete your account. Decide if you want Mark Zuckerburg to oversee how things like democracy work.
Zero confidence.
62
I agree that we as a society, through a representative government, need to strictly regulate companies whose business models are to use obfuscation to obtain data about citizens and then sell that data to anyone willing to pay without any regard for how that data will be use.
However, Mr. Giridharadas, with respect, I don't think you could have made your point with a worse anecdote if you were writing an article entitled "The Worst Anecdote I Ever Heard Used to Justify Collective Action Against Social Media."
If SPC Hawthorne were one of mine, he'd be at parade rest in my office until Zuck was in jail where he belongs, but we all know will never end up. "Lose Lips Sink Ships" posters were around long before social media.
11
I deleted my Facebook account and moved to MeWe. I did it so Facebook would not have access to any more of my information than it has already appropriated. I also use Firefox, a VPN, a privacy browser, and delete all tracking cookies. Laws will be great, if they are ever enacted. In the meantime, it's up to me too secure my info and data.
The reason Facebook doesn't change is because it doesn't have to. Billions of people are willing to trade their privacy for their "free" service. I'm no longer one of them.
That said, the onus for compromising her soldier son's safety is on the mother who chose to further share his location after he - who compromised his own security by sharing information in violation of Operational Security regulations, specifically told her not to tell anyone. The dangers of sharing operational info through social media is hammered repeatedly into the heads of our service members and their families, apparently to no avail.
26
I do use Facebook to be in touch with friends and relatives who are scattered all over the world.
BUT i never accept friendship from individuals whom I don`t know.
But I dislike whatever product i search for FB steals and and dangles in my face.
Saying that my husband wants FB to be obsolete period.
7
There are many choices we make to improve our lives. Spending more on quality food comes to mind. Deleting Facebook was a life-improvement choice for me. It will be a while yet - if ever - before tech companies have our best interests in mind. Until then Facebook, Alexa and wireless surveillance cameras are a few things I choose not to have in my home. Yes, it is unfair that we need to deprive ourselves of things but until change comes from the top it would be foolish to continue compromising our data and our privacy with tools that have proven to be unreliable.
26
Whether someone deletes a Facebook account is a personal decision. Even if the woman described in the article wants to, she can't, because it's the best way to stay in touch with her family. Other people need to use social media for work. It's not so easy for everyone to just quit.
It's obvious that our country needs online privacy laws like the GDPR enacted in E.U. countries. Some people think this smacks of Big Brother, but it's exactly the opposite: it gives individuals rights and control over how their online information is used and disseminated, either by governments or by private companies. Short of that, Facebook could go to a subscription or micro-payment model. But they won't want to do that, because they're making much much money now monetizing people's information.
To complicate matters, Facebook and high tech is an incredibly powerful lobby, and even liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi benefit from their contributions. It's unlikely Congress would pass sweeping legislation to protect our privacy.
So what's the solution? Campaign finance reform. If we got big money out of politics, perhaps our representatives might work for us again, doing things like protecting our information, instead of protecting the profits of their corporate donors.
8
I have a Facebook account but I seldom use it. I use email or the phone to send messages. But I notice that a lot of people use Facebook to hang out their laundry, clean or dirty, or whatever. Facebook users should use discretion on what they put on it. They should use it for fun and not for disseminating private information.
On the other hand, it does behoove Facebook owners to make it a secure site. Deleting Facebook is no solution.
3
MeWe was started as the anti-FB. It's not the answer. Regulation or user-fees are the answer. But deleting FB certainly felt good, and migrating to an alternative site that doesn't sell or share your data and is smaller scale feels better. Of course, useful networks require more people on it, but there's a nice group of us communicating and for now, it works.
4
I agree with the premise of this article: we absolutely need regulation (not to mention some anti-trust action against these tech behemoths... Facebook and Google command almost 60% of the online ad industry), but that's half the story: it is a willpower issue too. Facebook and other forms of social media are bad for all of us (linked to anxiety, sleep disorders, eating disorders, depression). A bit like the tobacco industry, we need to reign in these corporations, but consumers also need to make better choices for their own mental health and the health of our nation's psyche. Visit, call, text, email your loved ones-- all better than creeping on their social media feeds and reading polarizing fake news in the process.
17
I didn't delete my Facebook account because I was trying to bankrupt the company, I deleted it because I don't want to use a product that steals my data, lies, warps my perception of the world, and worsens my mood.
166
Facebook is not the problem. Users of the internet are.
A User should always assume the anything they use or post can be seen and saved.
Users don't need Facebook to stay in touch with family and friends. With modern cell service one can call and chat for hours if one so needed.
And there are a few apps the are encrypted ene to end if needed.
Blameing Facebook for using our personal lazy habits is not the path to correct our behavior changing it is the correct path.
10
Facebook took money from Russian Intelligence Disinformation Units; knowing they were trying to sway the 2016 election. That’s not a political or a willpower problem. That’s a treason problem.
60
Facebook abused your trust, and is profiting from doing so. Why would you stay on their platform? If you do so, you're rewarding their lousy behavior. If many people leave Facebook because their privacy matters to them, someone else will create a platform to attract those users. If you just keep doing what you've been doing, you'll get what you've always gotten.
I quit Facebook three years ago. Can't say I've missed it. Yes, I've lost immediate contact with some people, but, really, if they're not willing to continue contact with you outside of Facebook, were you really all that significant to them? When you lose touch with people, there's generally a reason.
Add to that, I don't miss constant updates, curated by the almighty algorithm, on my high school acquaintance's children's potty training, or shots of sunburnt peers mugging mindlessly into the camera from Boca Bourgeoisie, or the latest conspiracy "hawt take" from my deranged, Christian supremacist relatives.
25
Has anyone considered not putting private information on this public forum?
11
I feel the opposite; regulation is doomed to failure over social media applications whose business model is to monetize your private data. Pulling the plug on Facebook is a necessary first step.
If social media is a big part of your life you don't have much of one.
37
Calling for changes in the privacy laws and regulation is certainly one tact. However, FaceBook and social media organizations survive and thrive based on ad revenues which are tied to having a immense user base. The one clear way that we can influence these corporations and protect ourselves is by the choices that we make. If FaceBook is invading our privacy and is not keen to address the issue - drop it. Simply asking for regulation while enabling the corporations who are dropping their responsibilities is not the answer.
17
I am a contractor for a government operation. Part of the training is emphasis on not putting secret (or above) information in any public media forum. This is supposed to be communicated to family, as well. Facebook is a public forum. And it is insecure. Govern yourself accordingly. No one will do it for you.
54
@Steve you have that right. Unless the communications platform has NSA Type 1 encryption, there is nothing secure or even private about any data that exists.
6
@Steve But these Corporations are lying to us saying they do protect our privacy and they don't. Most of us are sick of liars. Phone service providers charge us money and still sell our information to unknown third parties. No this is a legislative problem, at both a State and Federal level.
6
@Mary
And you know what?
NSA Type 1 encryption can be hacked, maybe even as you read this....
1
It's a both/and situation. If you don't lock your doors, and someone breaks into your house, you both have a right to see justice, and you also should have been locking your doors. What kind of world do you think we live in.
I often say you don't need an FBI file when you have Facebook accounts. On all these sites, we have willingly, and happily, entered every single detail of our lives. We are not free of responsibility. We were stupid enough to buy into Facebook's marketing tactics and the ridiculous statement that it was "free."
But now that we have let it grow out of control, yes, we need better protection. We really need a constitutional convention and amendment explicitly granting us a right to privacy. Because right now it's not in the Constitution; privacy might be a principle sometimes behind the 4th amendment, but there is nothing protecting us from the kinds of massive dangers Facebook (and others) have put us in.
This is what should be at the top of Congress's to do list. It is completely bipartisan. And if it isn't already, it should be frightening everybody how much our data has been shared.
31
The question remains as to why hearing another persons voice or face time isn’t preferable to Facebook which is engineered to addict you to it. How much screen time is necessary until we are drowning in it, as soon as you think you cannot live without Facebook, they have you right where they want you, true tech addicts.
11
Maybe the next time Mark Zuckerberg appears before Congress it should be by subpoena and not by invitation and” I’m sorry won’t cut it “
9
Facebook is an addiction. It is designed with repeat customers, eyeballs on screens. It is a socially sanctioned form of addiction, for 2,000,000,000 people.
36
Sorry, but it *is* a willpower issue. Don't just delete FB, avoid using *all* gossip chatsites, period. Excellent for the soul, better even than meditation.
71
@inframan I completely agree with you. I agree with the overall gist of this article but it is completely about willpower to delete your own facebook and find other ways to communicate with your loved ones.
2
Anybody with internet access and a phone who cannot find better ways than Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family is simply not trying. The author is simply wrong----this is indeed a question of willpower and motivation.
113
@James
Exactly!
6
The basic premise of the article is right on the money. Since most people have essentially limited willpower, Facebook will be free to let its corrupt elitest attitude mow down society at large.
Like everything else in life one can either learn the easy way, or the hard way. Unfortunately, in this case society will invariably learn the hard way how Facebook is abusing its responsibility, and even probably destroying peoples' lives by selling their users private data which, in all likelihood, will subsequently be used by companies, organizations, and criminal elements, in nefarious ways.
A tragic and unfortunate result of liberal elitest power, now mostly in the hands of the extreme left wing Democrat Party.
16
@john sloane
I thought right-wingers were all about cynical companies taking advantage of the opportunities presented by an unregulated free market to profit from people making bad decisions that will ultimately crash human society but make a small percentage of mostly white mostly guys very rich in the meantime.
23
@john Sloane
That's why we have a government.
The corrupt elitist attitude you mention has joined hands with the GOP that forces people to learn the hard way, instead of protecting them from the outset through things like laws and regulations. Which has been heavily trampled on by the right in favor of greed and corruption over the last two years.
24
@Greg Nowell Change that to last 40 years.
9
As a user of facebook, the push of these flaws from big companies to the average American citizen isn’t only happening here, it’s mirrored in the movements in personal responsibility in climate change, poverty, and other major issues in society. The issue is a lack of call to action to convict the powers in the American society of the endangerments they put as in. However, the money lost from our economy as a result isn’t a risk most high-ranking individuals want to take, and see other priorities as higher.
3
Not a willpower issue, here - this is a maturity issue. Another example of the teenager's plight - modern American society being the teenager. Our current society demands -simultaneously- 1. maximum autonomy in decision making, 2. no consideration for shared resources, and 3. no responsibility for the consequences of 1 & 2. The problem is not facebook, the problem is our inability to make thoughtful, reasonable choices. We don't want government oversight limiting our choices, don't want to pay for the watchdogs either, but then are upset and surprised when a for-profit company doesn't look out for our best interests? There is no free lunch, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, loose lips sink ships - these are basic principles we just can't seem to grasp....
62
I don't buy this premise, entirely. While I strongly agree that we need tougher privacy laws, I don't agree that the conclusion that MySpace -- oops, I mean Facebook -- is an inescapable juggernaut. And though I fit squarely into the liberal camp, I don't buy into the "stereotypically liberal" mindset that its up to the government to solve our problems while we do nothing but endure the long wait for them to get around to it.
I also see the "there's no alternatives" argument as clearly spurious. I'm a user of MeWe, which, though smaller, prides itself on ethical privacy policies. I just wish they would charge me a fee, because I would like to see them create a survivable business model.
Though I agree regulation is needed, I also believe in the power of the marketplace. We can vote with our feet and our dollars, and darnit, if someone offered a social media service in which I was a paying customer and not an exploited product, I'd cough up the dough pronto, just like I did for this New York Times subscription. I can't be the only one.
8
@Linda Williamson: I agree with you up to a point. I had a similar epiphany when I realized that my gmail was free only because Google was selling all my metadata to marketers- all of a sudden all those people who still had AOL accounts they were paying for didn't seem so silly. But I pay for my cable service every month, and apparently my internet provider (Comcast) can still sell my data to other entities now, and I can't do anything about it (and will probably be paying just as much for my service as I was before). Facebook was already making money off their users data, but they keep finding ways to make MORE money by unmaking MORE data. They just keep scraping- apparently until the hit bone...
The problem is not necessarily that such a model exists- the problem is that we should never assume that there is a limit to corporate greed. Congress needs to step in and draw some boundaries in this space. Now that data has become a commodity, and we have the technology to analyze ghastly quantities of it, we need to start putting some of it off limits. And that is the job of regulators and legislators.
13
@Leigh: You hit on the point where a line can be drawn. As technology continues to advance capacity to analyze more and more data, its not so much the data collected as the inferences that can be garnered from it.
The current structure of data collection is to collect everything and hold it forever, you never know when a clever social scientist will make the next leap in predictive analysis. When that happens do want the data that was forever collected ago to still be available?
The current situation does not allow us to recover from the mistakes of learning, it only allows the opportunity for those that possess that data to take advantage of it.
We need the right to forget. We may never know who has collected what data from wherever we have been, the only correct inference is to assume it has all been collected and will always be collected. Enforcing the storage of collected data is the only way we will be able to save our futures from ourselves.
4
Maybe the mom should have kept the information secret the way she was supposed to. I don't disagree with the article's basic premise, but that wasn't the best example to support the case. "Keeping a secret" means not telling anyone. It doesn't mean "telling someone in a way that you think is private."
103
@Edith
Maybe, but close family have been sharing things the state would like to be secret for a real long time. Back before the computer soldiers in WWI/WWII would invent little codes to get around the postal censor and tell loved ones where they were.
A bit of human nature at work here, people are going to share "secrets" in private communication with loved ones that they trust (making it a problem if a company comes in and starts providing "private" communication while slyly selling the data).
2