Not having an account is a consumer response, not that of a citizen in a democratic society. We need a solution to this since information is the basis of democratic decision-making.
2
Facebook will not regulate itself...there is no U.S. law that says they must not sell personal information, or accept advertising revenue from any source. It's a private enterprise, and the U.S. supports capitalism.
Facebook's huge data base has enough specific information about users to be an advertiser's dream. They make a fortune selling this information. We cannot block their digital ads on our computers. They do not offer an "opt out" option.
Their leadership is cavalier about the consequences of having so much access to Americans, and the world. They can communicate propaganda, just so long as the propogandist pays the advertiising fee. If the "sheeple" believe it, that is not Facebook's problem.
Americans have become passive about the government's habit of spying on them, and Facebook takes advantage of this
In Europe, personal privacy is a right. In May, 2018, Europe's Data Privacy Protection Act will permit regulators to fine Facebook 4% of their annual revenue, or $1.1 billion, for sellng personal information, without user permission.
The U.S. should take a page from Europe on this issue, and someone should introduce a similar bill in Congress. The government could reap billions in fines, but then again, the government would have to actually follow existing privacy laws.
Decisions...decisions...
1
I am not a fan of Facebook, my wife is. I refuse to use it, for the reasons stated in the article. And, I am not alone.
1
Facebook is essentially a machine that takes private information and uses that information to advertise. Forget the rest of the business and how they get the information. It is not that different from a credit company that collects personal financial information and sells it to lenders.
The corporation owns a machine. They get paid to sell it, and they have little incentive to turn it off.
In the case of the election, Facebook tells us they were blindsided. They did not have the foresight to see how their machine could be used for nefarious purposes. This is not different from the gun industry, which also sells a machine that is safe and profitable in most cases, but also is used to kill innocent people. Most of us can see that there will always be evil out there, so guns will always kill, and we easily extrapolate that society can either regulate the industry or ask them pay us back when their machines cause predictable harm.
But, our country lacks is a legal system that is willing to make corporations pay the external costs that they inevitably reap on society. We ignore this even when we KNOW the product has this potential. We let them put the blame on others, ignoring their role. We act one way with Exxon paying for an oil spill, but with Facebook or with guns, we turn away. The solution may be to see the societal harm and put a cost on it. I would think the fines should be enormous (in tens of billions) when they alter national elections. No excuses.
2
Breaking News: “We can’t trust Facebook to regulate itself.”
...Is this parody?
Just like #NeverTrumpers, there are #NeverFaceBookers. I should know...I’m one of them.
Never signed up or even took a peak. Privacy problem solved. :))
7
We can't trust the government to "police" Facebook" or other websites to safeguard our information: The US government can't protect its NSA!
We can pressure Facebook as consumers.
NS
1
I've reported presumably fake Facebook accounts to no avail. These have no bio, photos, friends or posts. Or if they have a few posts, they start with the campaign, sometimes with Russian pictures or news sources.
I don't think FB tries very hard to police itself.
3
What capitalistic for profit business is going to self regulate in today's environment.
3
If y'all want a "regulated" (aka censored) web the solution is simple. Move to China or some other totalitarian State.
2
"We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself"
OK, there goes the "popular" neoliberal formula. What's next, "In [Casinos] We Trust?"
Green check marks indicate Facebook users, do they not?
At most a lukewarm user of Facebook (so trivial, repetitive and predictable were the postings, and that was only mine) and as in no way was I going to post pics of my grandkids, I cancelled my account some time ago. Not easy, by the way, just try and you'll see. I still get an email update when a certain person updates her fb (they warned me this may happen). I just delete the email straightaway but tres annoying.
Mark Zuckerberg sure was a genius to get us all to voluntarily post our personal stuff on the Internet for free while the company makes $500 billion from advertising. I could never understand why with what were supposed to be privacy settings, any journalist could see the fb of anyone who became newsworthy as suddenly pics of the person would be all over the news.
My only hope is that users will become bored with it but it is a vain hope: it seems to be adored by the average punter with little to say but shallow stuff about their day-to-day lives. Not exactly riveting.
But my deeper concern is that child porn is allowed to proliferate (not suggesting on fb) but on the Internet as a whole. C'mon, it must be able to be able to be regulated to a greater extent than it is, starting with fb and Russian hacking. Facebook is an American invention after all, guys do something!
1
Zuckerberg should just be thrown in jail for 15 years no appeal, just to give him a tatste of what being powerless is like when people who should,listen to you don't.
1
How can consumers take social media critical op-eds seriously when every major 'legit' news source provider (including NYT) promotes and plasters facebook (and twitter) icons and SHARE options on every single article and comment (even this one) that they publish?
3
So many suggestions on how to run Facebook...
I've just got one - they should invite Obama to join their BoD, just like Apple invited Al Gore to join theirs...
OK - maybe half of one more...
He should also be invited to sit on their BoD ethics subcommittee - and perhaps be invited to chair it, after a year or so...
For clarity, I'd grown to dislike the man and his policies...
But - I'd much rather have Obama out there in private-sector roles like this, than having Mnuchin loose in the Treasury vault, after hours...
Think critically and your brain won't be hijacked. If people go for the easiest opinion (ie, the one that matches your own) without any critique or evidence, we deserve it. You can't legislate stupid. I'm no paragon, but I make certain I triangulate 'news' with several sources and accept opinion pieces as just that, someone's opinion. Only use social media to be social, not to be informed.
So Facebook has everything to do with advertising and nothing to do with being social? Oops! Taken again. So now after being here in America all my life, I now must know what a fish feels like in a barrel. The irony of America is that even though surrounded mostly by water, I still can’t swim away.
Why would anyone have ever trusted a company that got its start rating women for "hotness"? Facebook has been based on stealth and secrecy from the get-go.
1
or: '... a company that got its start rating women for "hotness"'
The ratings were for people, not "women". And more significantly:
"The programming and algorithms that made the site function were Zuckerberg’s primary interest in creating it, he said."
Source:
Facemash Creator Survives Ad Board
By Katharine A. Kaplan, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
November 19, 2003
www dot thecrimson dot com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/
or: "Facebook has been based on stealth and secrecy from the get-go."
Facebook has extensive online documentation about legal and technical matters.
I joined Facebook in 2005 and it was a completely different animal back then. You actually had to be an adult with an email ending with ".edu" In a lot of ways, I miss those days. Facebook is full of ignorant and just plain awful people. It's a cesspool of misinformation and hateful people. I think its time to part ways with Facebook.
2
the only solution: stop using Facebook
I asked my internetshop to stop sending me face-book ads and he did.
1
Privacy? That's sooo 20th century.
1
Obviously some bot reads one's internet searches because related advertising follows every inquiry. There's probably a record of every search you ever did somewhere.
In America there is only one god...wealth. Nikita Khrushchev once said to US that we would sell them the rope that they would use to hang us. Appears he knew what he was talking about.
In this age of Reagan/t rump it is clear that our government is not up to the task of protecting our privacy, our rights, even our democracy; as we see the so called president and his party and base shrug off Russian interference with our election. Interference with our democracy. They just don't care.
If We the People survive this, and that is a great big if, the pendulum will swing back to deep regulations on publicly owned airways and utilities regarding "Fair and Balanced" reporting and advertising. Physics works like that regarding balance. But like I said, it is a big IF.
1
As the article illustrates, this is a cultural issue. And it's an old story.
Facebook is a society, not a platform. As such it needs digital equivalents of police, firefighters, governance and a judiciary.
When I left politics in the mid-80s and became an early developer of online multiplayer video games I was more than a little surprised by how culturally illiterate many tech people were. But it makes sense really. You don't become a computer programmer because you're interested in human behavior.
An amusing example of this I'd encounter later when working for Microsoft Corporation on the launch team for XBox Live - their console game online service.
I was shown a UI mockup. When I clicked on the friends list, this message appeared:
You Have No Friends
No matter how hard or how reasonably or calmly I tried to explain to them that this was a bad thing all I got were bewildered or angry facial expressions. A new user, factually, did not have friends...yet.
And then there was the candidate they were going to hire but changed their mind when someone brought up the fact that, right out of school, she'd taught English in Guatemala. "She was probably reading novels when she was 10," one guy complained, "not taking apart Apples," meaning Apple computers, which I guess the rest of them were.
This is an issue of company culture within the tech industry. Or, rather, a huge lacuna in both their awareness and knowledge of human culture.
2
Yes Jonathan. I get the same impression whenever I see interviews with Zuckerberg; he just wants the whole world to be friends! He seems to be about 5 years old while making billions.
1
Everyone is concerned about their privacy until you offer them free shipping.
4
Facebook will regulate itself when a majority of people want it to.
If those who call for it to change were actually a majority of the citizenry, and would threaten to cancel their accounts if things do not change, both the advertisers and Facebook itself would make whatever changes were necessary to keep their ad viewers. As it stands, Facebook is acting in a fashion which is perfectly acceptable to both its customers and its advertisers, so why should it change.
Anyone who gets their news from Facebook posts from unknown sources deserves to be as ignorant as they are; if it wasn't Facebook feeding their ignorance it would be the National Inquirer.
Trust Facebook? Anyone who trusted Facebook for their news feed or with their credit card information etc. needs help. Facebook is what it is, a social network.
Facebook is doing just fine. The people who use Facebook need help. Maybe the NYT can help.
FB and Twitter lost their integrity with me because I don’t want to be an algorithm for the advertisers, our WH administration or the Russians. The WH admin scares me more than the Russians. Call me paranoid, but I deactivated both of my accounts.
"We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself." This is news??
The problem is not that "We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself" but that so many people ever thought we could. Does every generation really have to reinvent the wheel?!!
2
I spent a lifetime in leadership positions in technology industries. Like all corporations, they serve their shareholders. This is intrinsic and basic to the construct. Regulators without association with the corporations can effect change. Without this, every US corporation will serve the shareholders exclusively; they cannot, by their nature, regulate in ways that do not serve the shareholders.
1
"Like all corporations, they serve their shareholders."
That's an over-simplification. Companies must also serve their customers if they intend to stay in business.
Let me count the reasons I recently deactivated my Facebook account: Messenger for one. I read the privacy policy and did not want it. After rejecting Messenger, Facebook would no longer allow me to just message friends; the Russian thing was another; discovering some of my old friends (that I hadn't seen in decades) were racist and born-again Trump supporters yet another; untrue stories; and finally beginning to feel like my Fb account was just meat going through a hamburger grinder.
I had started out enjoying Fb: pictures, reconnecting with old friends, recipes, having a 'platform'. But gradually it changed and I realized Fb did not improve my sense well being and some posts were simply obnoxious and hateful instead of a different point of view. My mood has improved with no Fb and I'm making a point of seeing more of the people I care the most for anyway. I do not miss it.
4
Expecting Mark Zuckerman, poster boy for entitled snots, to have any concern for anybodies rights other than his own, is pure folly. The most concerning about Facebook is how insidious it becomes once you invite it into your life. This struck me in the Fall of 2008, several weeks after I signed up for Facebook I was receiving unwanted promotions and friend requests. I cancelled my participation but the daily entreaties to come back continued for months and did not stop until I sent off several rude suggestions as to where to place their company and they finally got the message.
I would propose making guidelines that hold Facebook accountable, not necessarily for the veracity of third-party links, but for how they are prioritized. Laws should be strengthened to prevent Facebook from delusively boosting slanderous content—especially from anonymous sources—to near the top of their search results and news feeds. I would also advocate for fines and penalties if Facebook ignored victim requests to discount or de-prioritize demonstrably false and defamatory content. More on the legal aspects of this here: https://medium.com/@mayoinmotion/little-known-google-facebook-legal-bomb...
1
We do not have the right to regulate Facebook content. Am I the only one who has read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Facebook posts are speech. Even hate speech is protected. If yo don't like Facebook content, you are free to not follow Facebook. Censoring Facebook means censoring all news and social media.
Facebook’s objective is to make money by manipulating users. They are to be herded to advertisers, preferably those where they are disposed to buy something. Whatever personal information helps focus users where advertisers want them is information that improves the targeting of sales pitches and increases Facebook’s revenues.
Does Facebook understand that this approach entails collateral damage? Does any such awareness outweigh the business goals?
Apparently not: if “fake news” brainwashes a user into becoming a paranoidal consumer of alarm systems and firearms, the creation of a potential paranoidal madman is not Facebook’s responsibility. Sales are.
6
JB
As ought to be abundantly clear by now, no matter the product, no matter the corporation, no matter the risks or the damage or the ethics, nothing outweighs business goals. Ever.
You're hoping for morality, or humanity, where there is none.
Facebook is also targeting animal rescuers. It may be accidental, but they ignore pleas to fix this. This prevented animals from going home after Hurricane Harvey. If you know animal rescuers, chances are good you know someone who has been temporarily blocked by Facebook. There is something in their algorithm that penalizes animal rescuers.
Perhaps another reason that our personal information is so carelessly handled, is that like the data, we are just an aggregate to Facebook. We are not individuals. We are not even people. There is no way to get a personal response from Facebook if you are blocked. I have been blocked twice for a period of weeks and was reduced to writing a letter, which no one answered.
This is killing dogs and cats and will continue to do so until someone at Facebook takes animal rescuers seriously and reaches out to us. I have this issue well documented. I have tried, in vain, to contact Facebook about this issue.
Buying and selling personal information is a lucrative business for the collectors and buyers. Facebook has no responsibility for this information, once sold, and the same information is sold over and over to other marketers.
The U.S. is a capitalist country, and therefore, money rules. Facebook ardently follows this tenet.
The 4th Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, and to be secure in our own homes with our papers and effects, is directed at the U.S. government.
The logical extension of the amendment to digital properties would make sense had the internet existed when it was written.
The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the disclosure, by government, of information from their data collection records without the written consent of the subject individual.
So, it's legal for Facebook to simply takes users' personal information and sell it, without user permission, because no law prevents it. Of course they will take full advantage.
In Europe, personal privacy is a right. In May, 2018, Europe's Data Privacy Protection Act will permit regulators to fine Facebook 4% of their annual revenue, or $1.1 billion, for sellng personal information, without user permission.
The U.S. should take a page from Europe on this issue. The government could reap billions in fines, but then again, the government would have to actually follow existing privacy laws.
3
If Facebook is a threat to democracy, then democracy in the US is weak. And if democracy is so weak in the US, then we should probably take steps to more heavily regulate all media. And even break up mass media. I'm much more concerned about corporate control of the American news stream than $200K (or so) in Russia spondered ads.
1
Let us not forget that "The Facebook" started as sexual harassment.
3
Facebook obviously plays a far too important a role in our society on a number of levels to allow it to regulate itself. We simply can not allow foreign entities to deliberately use it as a tool to negatively impact our democratic processes, particularly when it comes to our elections. There needs to be external controls applied that insure that false information isn't being planted for political gain, whatever and wherever the source. If we lose faith in our democratic processes, and the information contained therein, our democracy will suffer greatly. This we can not allow.
3
Where are all of the concerned citizens who are afraid of the intrusive reach of the Federal government yet only shrug and yawn when they are repeatedly warned of the erosion of online privacy by social media platforms, advertisors, and data analytic firms ?
Someday very soon - perhaps already - all of that personal data that is legally and opaquely packaged, sold, and processed by private industry will make its way to federal agencies who might very well have a vested interest in monitoring your behavior, your thoughts, your actions.
2
Don't ask questions. Just vote for the Russiacan Party in 2020 and save the world for Oligarchs everywhere.
Because if you are poor you must be stupid. Right?
You know self-regulation is difficult for every single human being alive. Hence parents and police and therapists and peer pressure, religion and more.
Neither business or government can be trusted to regulate itself.
This simple truth is why we need equally powerful private and public sectors.
Equal.
To act as one another's watchdogs.
Right now the private sector is out of control. The public sector is in their hands.
4
I find Sandy Parakilas's perspective very interesting, and many of the comments from readers, too. We've known for a long time, if we've been paying attention, that Facebook along with Google and others are collecting every bit of data on us they can. So surely we have some personal responsibility here for reading the privacy policies and for interpreting propaganda parading as news. When we download an app for our smart phones, we agree to allow the developer of the app access to all our contacts. You downloading an app gives the developer access to MY information because I'm in your contacts list. Facebook has access to your email account contact list. I rarely download an app and I lie about everything..name, date of birth, etc. unless it's important legally to have correct information...banking, medical. I'm into mucking up their data collection machine and recommend that to everyone. Let's make it useless.
Facebook is the biggest waste of time ever invented. Why would anyone GIVE them any kind of personal data? (Yeah, I know, peer pressure, not thinking about information security, etc. etc.)
Nevertheless, these guys (and the credit rating agencies who collect all sorts of confidential personal information) need to be very carefully restricted in what they can disclose without asking you for permission in each instance, and with appreciable financial penalties for unauthorized disclosure and for failing to secure their servers. European countries are much more cautious in allowing people to disclose information about others.
Yeah, I know Facebook (and many other websites) ask for a blanket agreement at the outset. That is an adhesion contract, because you cannot "play in their sandbox" without agreeing, and they do not negotiate the terms of the agreement with anyone. It is a "take it or leave it" agreement.
That is another reason why I "leave it." You should too.
1
This problem of the rampant invasion of our digital privacy goes much wider that just Facebook, as a recent incident demonstrated to me. In brief: I bought a 2nd car, and my auto insurance and homeowners company wanted to double my policy cost, even though I am the only driver. They offered a cheaper auto policy that would charge me according to how much, and how safely I drove. All I needed to do was to download an app to my smart phone that would track my driving habits. But upon setting up the app, it demanded access to the following: Location, Photos, Messages, Browsing History and Bookmarks, Phone, Contacts, Camera, Microphone, WiFi connection, SMS, Phone, etc.
Location info seems obvious, but most of the rest seemed unnecessary and risky for me, but the worse was that they demanded my "Contacts". There is no way I will share contact information of my friends and business associates, who have no knowledge or desire to be marketed by my insurance company.
I spent hours trying to get an answer why they needed my contacts. They brushed me off with numerous poor excuses. Tech support said the app was a a Google product, and they were the ones requiring the personal data access. I do not know if this was true. The bottom line was that the insurance company said "take it or leave it". I refused, so am paying twice as much for auto insurance even though I am driving the same amount as before.
I am now looking for another insurance company.
1
She is right. Our democracy is at stake. What irony that capitalism and the desire to milk profits via advertising will lead to the end of real democracy. I️ say break up Facebook and have the FB execs lean in. What a joke they have become, nothing should make us think they care about us, no books, no medical institutions, no mea culpa. Our democracy for ad revenue; so sad.
1
There is a very simple solution; don't have a facebook account. Can't people live their lives without posting every detail for all to see? It's not only your "friends" but friends of friends of friends who can find out about you. Yes, there are alleged privacy protocols but they keep changing. Worse yet, some of your supposed friends may post about you and your family with photos even if you don't want to. The obvious answer is not to give Facebook any information, to begin with. Don't worry, you will survive without hanging your laundry on the line for all to see.
3
The premise of this article is that ordinary adults cannot be trusted to lead their lives without adult supervision. Instead of belittling American adults, how about a little education and common sense? Here are some important tips for helping adults decide how to use Facebook and to guide their kids.
- If something, like Facebook is free, you're not the customer, you're the product - Facebook’s allegiance isn’t to you.
- If you post embarrassing information about yourself on the internet, you may turn out to be embarrassed for a long, long time into the future.
- Some stuff on the internet isn’t true.
- No one cares about you as much as you. Don't expect otherwise.
This author reminds me of Obamacare's Jonathan Gruber expounding about the stupidity of the American people.
1
I don't even have a facebook account but I'm under no delusion that the company doesn't know everything about me. My mother posts images and information about me, my spouse also does the same. Right there is enough triangulation to know what I look like, what my interests are, where I live, my name and age, how I probably vote and more.
At the Congressional hearings there was so much hand-wringing about the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects your ability to petition the government in public for a redress of grievances. Facebook is a private company. Everybody knows when you walk through the door at work you don't have total freedom of speech, so why do we protect it so much at Facebook/Twitter/Google? Those are not public spaces. Please, regulate them!
Finally, Dianne Feinstein told these companies that they didn't get it, that this is the beginning of cyber warfare. If it really is cyber war, why don't we send in the military or the intelligence community and have them help us fight this war? Why do we sit around so meekly wringing our hands while our country is flooded by foreign and hostile internal propaganda?
Facebook is a for-profit company rolling in money founded by a guy originally motivated by getting even with a girl.
Isolating yourself online with a group that only agrees with you is fraught with danger, no matter how good your intentions.
The profitable "disuption" of the means of communication should not be used to gather news.
Expecting the profiteers to do much about it is just plain wrong. We have a president who is solely focused on enabling kleptocrats. Why should billionaires develop a conscience. Conscience is being thrown on the waste heap of history.
This will not end well.
When services become "necessities", it is time to regulate them. In 1930s, a home phone was not a necessity. In 1945, less than half the household had a home phone, but by 1960 that number of went up to 80% and by then the home phone definitely became a necessity. Today, access to internet at home is certainly a necessity and a mobile phone for adults also falls into that category. One might say this is different than a service like FB, but just like not having a phone in 1960, not being on FB can be a huge detriment in social and business environments. So an alternative to simply opting out of the service if you do not want your information shared must be available for those new necessities. Maybe once a service, or better yet service type, crosses a certain threshold, additional regulations and requirements are put in place.
It is clear reading some of the replies that many people do not understand the power of the data mining that these companies use. Even if you don't use your real name or photo in FB, they know who you are from the many pieces of data you leave behind in your browsing habits, what platform you are using (phone or tablet or PC), correlations between browsing habits on different devices, etc. They can even tell with good accuracy who in the family is using the computer at any given moment.
Undeniably FB gathers your personal information to sell to the highest ad bidder and the company and execs are becoming exorbitantly wealthy at the public's expense. The dangers could not be more clear today. What is baffling is that the far right thinks the government is the big bad player when, in fact, the government has nowhere near the amount of personal information on Americans that Facebook and Google have. It is the companies that have more control over the lives of Americans, not the government.
36
"What is baffling is that the far right thinks the government is the big bad player when, in fact, the government has nowhere near the amount of personal information on Americans that Facebook and Google have."
Equally baffling is the far left's notion that government can somehow protect you from data mining. Our society is addicted to social media and mobile devices. It will only get worse.
Read the NYT article “Soothsayer in the Hills Sees Silicon Valley’s Sinister Side”, an interview with Jaron Lanier. It explains, with examples, that in addition to a business model that conflicts directly with responsible handling of users’ personal data, Facebook has the even larger problem of being clueless: they don’t grasp what’s wrong with what they’re doing.
In particular, Facebook should be legally forced either to get out of the news business or to be subject to all the regulations governing news media. Their “algorithms” simply regurgitate as “news” whatever tidbits can be found that fit into individually tailored echo chambers. Removal of garbage based upon filtered reader complaints is inadequate: too little, too late.
29
The existence of called facebook and twitter "social" media depends on the desperate need of individuals who have deep-seated insecurity and ego-centric hangups. Their primary coverup message is "Here I AM --Look at how Great I am compared to the rest of you nothings. If you disagree with me you're headed for the dumpster" . Sound familiar?? Facebook and twitter participants are especially soft pickings for scammers, lobbyists, and power centers/individuals who want to propagandize and control the masses. Regulation to take the above away from would destroy their market and reason for existence.
3
Your data is YOUR data. Content you create by posting it on social media is YOUR content, not FB's or TWTR's or AMZN's. That is the sense of the International Copyright accords. But these companies slip tricky wording into EULAS and Privace Statements in order to make it effectively theirs to use, sell, and abuse as they and their partners see fit.
We get upset about hacks of our data at Equifax, retailers, and even the government's database of those who applied for security clearances, and we demand they be fixed. Meanwhile, we hack ourselves by casual sharing of our lives through social media. Profit for them, identity theft and election hacking for us. We are committing privacy suicide through our Facebook addictions.
4
Wow, just wow. The ignorance of this article is astounding.
Forget the fact that the government cannot restrict speech in any way. Something everybody should have learned in elementary school and it has not become clear that there are a lot of "smart" people that do not know this.
The way you force Facebook to change is to STOP USING IT!
1
Facebook is more dangerously intrusive than most of you assume. Recently my Facebook account was blocked and I received an email from Facebook demanding I further identify myself (because I'd used my moniker from my Plant-based Eating Group: ListeningHere). My driver's license and credit card were stolen, so I'm cautious. But Facebook wants information that would allow any employee or hacker to completely steal my/your identify. The Facebook e-mail reads:
- Scan one item that Facebook accepts as identification, like a drivers license, passport or a bank statement…to get into your account (this is a partial list from Facebook’s page of suggested identify verification to send them:
Birth certificate
Driver's license
Passport
Visa
Tax identification card
Bank statement
Credit card
Medical record
School ID card
Social Security card
Social welfare card
This seems personally dangerous for anyone to disclose to a business where there's no way to contact anyone or trace who does what. Facebook has become a business and social web of powerful proportion and they are unethically wielding that power. https://www.facebook.com/help/159096464162185?ref=cr
2
I am a reformed FB user, but I'm afraid there is still a fleshed out ghost of me inhabiting it's pages, populated by posts and pictures that remain in the Hell of FB, beyond my reach. Also there is at least one fake “me”, up to whatever its purposes may be, communicating with my former “friends” and perhaps forging new ones.
I joined FB for benign enough reasons, but soon I was discovered and the “friend” requests start to roll in. After a tentative start, I began to accept virtually all comers who were not just selling something. Many of these “friends” were from high school and other pit stops in my past lives. Slowly at first the political and racist hate stuff started to come. I'm a lefty, and have many actual friends of the same persuasion, and I had never seen posts or email forwards that were purely hateful, lying nonsense. Maybe they exist, but no one had ever sent me that kind of stuff with a leftward lean. The right has weaponized this sort of posting though, and the election of Obama shifted it into high gear.
Finally, I tried to withdraw only to find it is not exactly possible. Then someone started contacting people, claiming to be me. FB's approach to this mimicked Pilate's. My “friends” were on their own. Some deserve this fate perhaps, but FB itself deserves a much harsher treatment, one it will likely avoid. It is too big a brick in the foundation of our societal sickness. The afflicted will not even look up from their screens to whimper.
3
It's past time to take these tech companies down. They have provided a technological opiate that sucks us in and requires us to lose control over our private being. To hell with that. "Open the pod bay doors" or we'll disconnect you.
3
Well, gosh, it's free, you know. There is an old saying that you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Of course you should. If it was obvious to me, a sixty five year old non techie five years ago that this was just a greedy info gathering scam, and there were and are a lot of problems inherent, then Zuckerberg and his minions knew. As to those who have written, "just don't use it," they are of course correct, and I do not. But we all have to live under that falsely elected sociopath in the white house don't we? Whether we have gotten sucked into the maw of social media or not. And we will all have to deal with whatever even more tragic consequences that we have yet to experience.
2
Facebook simply is what it is. It is what scares Americans more than anything else. It provides them with true freedom of speech. It allows them to blurt out anything they want in a public (world wide) forum. It allows its users to regulate this to some degree. HOWEVER, Facebook is somewhat devious in that it collects this data behind the scenes with the business intention to better target the users likes and interests to direct appropriate advertisements to those users. Facebook should be called on the carpet for taking our loose tongue mind-spills and SELLING the info to other companies who the user has NOT DIRECTLY verbally complied with possessing this info. A slippery slope indeed, but certainly a slope that is easily averted by the user through self regulation. Yeh right. So, keep in mind that Facebook is a world wide public forum that you are (with some effort) able to curtail which users can see your posts, but it does nothing to allow the user to regulate the outflow of their information by Facebook in selling out this collected data to corporate advertisement forms.
1
Markie the Magician has known from the get-go how to make as much money as he can by insisting that he's just trying to make the world a better place. He promises the info-sucking vultures "Everything you always wanted to know about people but were afraid to ask." What a slimy snake-oil salesman he is, about as far from being a real "friend" to FB users as he could be.
2
What value does FB provide to its users?
I finally shut down my Facebook page entirely. It’s not that useful and can be a real time suck. I do not miss it at all
2
Finally, Pravda.
Facebook has become the Craigslist of social media. Useful at times, but buyer beware. Personally, I find the site an annoying distraction and rarely use it. For businesses that want me to use Facebook, I avoid the business.
But there is actually a much more important issue here, and that deals with freedom of speech. Unlike newspapers or TV stations that direct the message outward in one direction and have, as they should, editorial control, social media is the town square of conversation and what should be an open exchange of free speech. Imagine going to a public lecture or being at a protest and their is someone in a suit from Silicon Valley bleeping out the talk in certain spots, or whispering into the speakers ear and shaking his/her head. Bizarre right? Well, that is pretty much what is happening now, and who some are actually asking more of. I personally do not need, or want, some Silicon Valley suit censoring my access to speech from anyone. Let me decide. Otherwise, you are giving to corporations an enormous, and dangerous, amount of control over a public forum of thought, ideas, and speech.
1
"The premise was simple: Users agreed to give game developers access to their data in exchange for free use of addictive games."
This sort of pact is widespread in the Internet. For example, Google Docs and Google Drive require users to give up privacy to use their software. Even the NYT requires users to surrender a certain amount of privacy in exchange for reading the NYT on-line. Trading privacy for a "free" service is an aspect of the Internet that is in need of more regulation. Yes, I can opt-out of the trade but what happens to all the information they have gathered on me until then? There is no way I can go and erase all of it. As part of the pact, it is no longer mine and has been distributed widely.
While I am skeptical that social network providers, like Facebook, should be forced to police content, I do believe their privacy practices and the concept of who "owns" our personal information is in need of pushing more control to the end user rather than to the provider.
1
catch me if you can
1
Facebook, Tweeter, etc. I want nothing whatsoever to do with them. The more hooks this horrid information cabal has in you the worse.
1
This article is so typical of Liberals - Chicken Little Syndrome along with no real life practical solutions!
1
Facebook is not a news organization....nothing about it guarantees you are reading verified information. Put FB down and pick up a newspaper!
4
Social media has been weaponized by Russian bots, of course it needs to be regulated.
4
How shocking! What was originally started as an online tool for college frat boys to rate the 'hotness' of female classmates winds up causing problems for us all.
Goebbels once offered that without radio, Hitler would never have been able to ascend to power. Imagine if he had had twitter and Facebook? Oh, wait....
8
Facebook is evil.
But can we trust The New York Times to regulate itself? :-)
3
Facebook is pure evil. Feeding like a parasite from the many many narcissists among our population. From the users I know it’s always “but I use it to keep in touch with family”.......really ? Try a phone call or maybe seeing someone in real time. I don’t need to see your cappuccino, baby photos, or museum selfies. Disgusting
Does the Times investigate the comments sections to make sure there are no Russian agents leaving messages under pseudonyms?
1
How to quit Facebook at
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/how-to-quit-facebook.html
1
Facebook is a great platform for organizations, but any individual still on Facebook is an idiot. You ARE the product, people.
1
With a company like FaceBook as in others, the bottom line is money. Greed and materialism are the twin oars that will sell our democracy down the river if we don't demand something better. I see it in not only in large corporations like FaceBook, but in many facets of our government.
I remember when I first set about writing a profile for FaceBook. I didn't feel comfortable with it, even back then. So I didn't post a photo, didn't post my actual name, and left my personal information as sketchy as possible. It was probably a futile gesture, but I have never visited the site regularly, and can't recall a single ad. But I do remember a lot of videos of animals getting along.
1
Just maniacal. Time to regulate.
1
Americans keep offloading the responsibility for being stupid on neutral platforms like Facebook. Facebook is just the carrier, it does not supply the content. But if people read and like a lot of stupid stuff and fake news, then the Facebook algorithms correctly conclude that this user really wants fake news and stupid stuff, and will feed him more fake news and stupid stuff. I never had any of that in my feed, guess why?
How can one ever trust Facebook and similar electronic exposers of privacy in anything?! Clamp them shut!
For goodness sake, fakebook is an advertising platform posing as a technology company. It's product is is users, willing dupes in the data market. Use fakebook at your own peril. Just stop whining - either get Congress to regulate the data market, or boycott the platform. Don't do stupid!
1
can we really trust any corporation to regulate themselves? the believe that there doesn't need to be regulations because corporation will do what's right is childishly naive & dangerous.
2
Call me cynical, but the chances of support for Facebook regulation by a president who benefited from Russian manipulation, by an administration intent on ripping the Code of Federal Regulations apart page by page or by a GOP congress that clearly prioritizes its donors' interests over those f the American public are, as Mama would say, slim and none.
2
Why would anyone join Facebook? It's stupid and predatory. Opt out! It's not a requirement of life.
2
Why does the article bemoan "election meddling" and yet the image at the top of the article show two Facebook post, neither having anything to do with the election?
This is nothing but a censorship witch hunt. None of the supposed "problems" with data privacy have anything to do with the Russia meddling red herring which democrats have seized on to explain the loss of the election. Racism has nothing to do with facebook data, and the unrelenting fixation of media with such a narrative highlights, and its resonance with a large sector of America, highlights the discrepancy between white and black America, with the former unsurprisingly opportunistically manipulating and avoiding honesty and objectivity at every turn.
It's not Russia that bastardized the judicial system and the police. It's not Russia who bastardized the very politics of the nation.
This is a country and regardless of evidence, refuses to murderers in police departments. The only meddling that has ever happened in America has been by its who believe that due to their whiteness they're better than others.
2
The evil root of fake news. And a fake president.
Ditto, Twitter.
We are lazy, easily entertained, rarely vigilant, and trite....
We feast off of our young, and look to others for protection....
Fat and spoiled, if we were squirrels the hawks would be even fatter....
But we are soylent green, and the exploiters feed on us like the uber-slow little
piggies we are....
We Americans love to watch TV shows where every American is a sleek,
smart, fit, hero...... LOL....
1
Maybe we would not need face book so much if we could trust the media to give us all information, even the information that does not make certain powerful groups that control Washington look bad? Like... the story of Weinstein and black cube? Like... the boy in Israel who called the Jewish centers in the U.S.? what did happen to him? What was his motivation? Ya, you'd like to control Face Book because we talk about all those things that the powers that be don't want us to dwell on or even find out about.
Fakebook.
stupid is as stupid does...
The 126 million people (or billion register users) don't seem to be asking why investors are backing multi-billion dollar IPO's and companies - based solely on the assumption that you will give your personal data to a basically anonymous entity, keep your eyeballs on the site for hours, read stories from unverified and non-standard sources, click on random links... and people think there are altruistic ends to this offer?
Yes, I use some of these tools (not Facebook) - but with eyes wide open. And the assumption that bad things can and do happen.
If you can understand you aren't just a user, you are the one being used, you might make your decisions accordingly. The reality is people are lazy in self-regulating, critical thinking, taking responsibility for themselves and wanting something / anything that they perceive as free. Well, they and all of us are paying mightily.
Congratulations, world, you've been Zucked. And whatever is born from this, you will be forced to bear.
2
Buying ads in rubles although not illegal, should have been a red flag and our intelligence agencies should have been notified. This falls into the same realm of incompetence as the 9-11 highjackers requesting to learn how to fly planes but not asking how to land them. No red flags there? How stupid, complacent and dangerous our society has become not to care about the consequences of our actions. As always, money trumps everything in the USA. The only way to solve our problems in this capitalistic society is to regulate businesses which will never happen with the GOP in charge, so buyer beware.
Problem with Facebook?
Facebook.
Boycott. That'll get get Mark's attention.
And never forget where the name comes from.
Thanks so much for your insight Ms. Parakilas. Like you, I too have a background in large scale systems. What you speak of with regard to Facebook and it's business model of vacuuming up user data to monetize is just another example of an exploitive process, albeit one gone amok on a grand scale. Out here is Silicon Valley we have been dealing with scummy systems like Facebook for decades. Here is an example of a solution that is used to bring it back into some semblance of accountability.
1.
Revise the registration process to disallow any new account that cannot be 'owned' by a verifiable person using multiple identity points such as credit card, SSN, DOB, etc. This is called an account ID matrix. If the account is not a 'personal' account, then implement two levels of review and approval before it is published. This will greatly (+80%) curtail the creation of fake accounts.
2.
Create, run, and flag all accounts that do not have a complete and verifiable ID matrix. Employ batch processes to warn, disable, and ultimately delete such accounts unless the 'owner' updates the matrix. For non-'personal' accounts that have not been approved, employ batch processes that will warn, disable, and ultimately delete such accounts unless the owner submits them for approval.
These two things (day 1 - registration, day +1 batch capture) can be accomplished via third parties so we don't need to rely on Facebook. So, that's the easy, techie part. Now for the political part.
1
I don't like these evil media companies that require a person to have a facebook account to comment on articles.
1
Facebook is the perfect aphrodisiac for today's narcissists.
Facebook adds little value. Posting family pictures? Sure, but you can also actually spend some time and creativity creating a real book of photos.
People who get their news from Facebook are buying a pig in a poke.
2
FaceBook is a horrid product. What used to be cool is now a terrible user experience filled with annoying ads and posts from "friends" you haven't kept in touch with and don't care about.
Google+ failed miserably before. But I think a refreshed effort now focusing on a clean and streamlined interface would kill FaceBook.
1
It's really very simple and a lot like smoking cigs: Be smart, don't start. If you have started, quit. Some damage will have been done, but the longer you have quit, the closer you will be back to full health.
Fiendbook would be a better name for this breech of your privacy. It facilitates people comparing themselves with others in the most meaningless and materialistic ways, which leads to petty jealousy and depression.
My network of friends and family members is robust and intact with no need for Fb. I refuse to be another bozo on Zuckerberg's money bus, and so should you.
I dare you: Try it for a month, and see if you're not happier, and with more free time for yourself, family and friends. Fb is a toxic trap.
1
Those were fairly anodyne examples of what Facebook “knows” about it’s prey, er users. Let’s explore further:
Facebook knows your daughter is pregnant. And before she tells you.
Facebook knows your marriage is in trouble. And before your close friends do.
Facebook knows about your serious health issues. And before not only your spouse, but before YOU do.
Facebook knows what laws you have broken. And before law enforcement does.
Social media junkies have no idea of the power of big data allied to complex algorithms. No idea. And Silicon Valley is only getting started.
1
Facebook is a free service that no one is forcing you to use. Stop complaining.
1
Perhaps the Sherman and Clayton acts. They’re still on the books.
A problem adding to that of a business model fundamentally in conflict with sensible administration of users’ personal data is the major issue pointed out in detail by Jaron Lanier in his interview with Maureen Dowd: cluelessness. (The interview is titled “Soothsayer in the Hills Sees Silicon Valley’s Sinister Side”). Facebook has no idea what the issues are, what is the matter.
1
If you get your news from Facebook you deserve to be duped. Great place to see pictures of grandmas 100th birthday party, not so great for news.
1
Exposure via Facebook is treacherous perhaps. However Facebook has aided many causes and has been useful in many emergency situations. The shallow surface in information however is not wisdom. Perhaps it is semi fake news? Years back Playwright Dr. Larry Myers of St John's University penned
"Facebook Puberty" and
"twitter theater." These were on the mark satiric monologue poetic, prophetic plays. Today Myers directs Playwrights Sanctuary, a theater foundation helping younger and newer dramatists organize urban scrawl into kinetic resistance stage works. Motto of the group -- expression, not oppression suppression or depression. Facebook is credited with helping organize the playwrights. Facebook is tip of yhe iceberg of data mega Mother Ship.
We can't trust government to regulate Facebook either, Lois Lerner's actions tell us that.
If you can, just say no to Facebook. You can go to the front page of businesses, candidates, etc. without being a member. Sadly, though, most people don't resist and succumb to this idiocy.
So you are now asking the government officials in charge - who were possibly elected because of lax Facebook policies - to enact policies that might get them unelected.
Fat chance that idea will fly.
Anyone who thought or thinks that Facebook was really interested in protecting its users data - after all, Mark, the founder/CEO is such a cute young man. And a Harvard alum! How could he not value his users and want to protect them?!? - has no idea what money does. And in the Facebook World, there is a *LOT* of money.
Monopoly broke up AT&T. It should be so with Facebook.
2
Facebook is evil. Don't use it.
2
Just say no to Facebook
2
If you don't protect yourself what makes you think someone else will. Stop putting yourself out for the whole world to see. Never Facebook.
1
Facebook is akin to keeping a political Burmese python as a pet at home. It gives one hugs, and slowly, imperceptibly, one loses one's locus of control. Unfortunately, the folks most keenly interested in what one tastes, or what one thinks, or what one sees, or touches, or hears are those looking for a way to obtain more filthy lucre. It's the dark side of capitalism alive and in your Face. Facebook is the ultimate propaganda machine. Who knows what the python knows? The Shadows do...
I always find it amusingly ironic when these types of articles, critical of Facebook, or issuing warnings about, actually show up in the feed!
I think it's because the people who run FB know that most people have little regard for their own privacy.
*calls broker, sells Facebook stock, deletes account.
It’s the only way to kill the monster...
It seems to me social media acts as an amplifier of whatever lies in the social fabric, and does so in a way that is particularly skewed towards the lowest common denominator. These companies, giant digital predators they are, know it and profit from it by exploiting what in a very unpolitical correct but sadly accurate way we could define as basic human stupidity. That mighty and impossible to underestimate force, BHS, lies at the heart of the strategy found by the vengeful and resentful fallen angels of the former URSS, the lords of KGB of which Putin is Prince of Darkness himself, humiliated by the dismantling of the Soviet Empire, who eventually understood the way to destroy the west is not through intelligence games but through stupidity exploration. Much of what we're seeing in the populist and nationalist hysteria consuming the west right now, and the US, derives from this principle. And the sad fact is that we are the enablers, either through our ignorance and lack of intellectual integrity, or, like the Facebooks of the world, through our greed.
Facebook is a piece of junk. I only read the first few paragraphs here. It is a capitalist venture and capitalism has only one virtue and value and that is profit. It abuses the knowledge that people have an ego and think they are the only thing of value in the universe. It let's them think they are important now that they can have and account and talk to the world. And tell us about their wonderful ideas and their genius and their priorities and what they are watching on TV.
This gives us more ignorance, more pride and more ability to spread bad ideas around than we can imagine. It gives us people wasting vast amounts of their time when they should be reading, studying and learning.
It gives us President Trump and the corrupt system in Washington, DC.
And it gives us ignorance about science philosophy and climate change.
It is a piece of junk.
Anyone who believes that Zuckerburg gives a hoot about his users is delirious. I'm waiting for someone to deliver a better product.
Google couldn't do it, What about Snap?
The only thing the sainted Sheryl Sandberg and Zuckerberg lean into is raw, amoral, treasonous greed. We need an unbought national legislature to regulate these people and their equally amoral peers before they totally ruin us.
1
Run a quick Google on “The First Amendment” before writing more along these lines. There’s some important information you need to know.
NDA violation?
Engineers have a tendency to want to do what they are capable of doing, without concerning themselves too much about what might eventually come of it. This is not a new phenomenon: when punch cards were a brand-new technology, a number of European states thought it would be interesting to collect information on the ethnic extraction of their citizens. A few decades later, this turned out to be the great facilitating technology of the Nazi race policies, without which there would have been no way to identify fractional Jewish ancestry neatly printed out street-by-street.
The parallel may seem harsh, but the ease with which the Russians were able to leverage Facebook's marvelously detailed information for the purpose of political targeting is just an early example of the same susceptibility to "unintended consequences".
It is not clear who, if anyone, can safely be entrusted with such detail. The very least Facebook can do is control access very, very carefully, which no doubt interferes with their business plan - but so would the systemic failure of American democracy.
1
The author clearly, sincerely believes that Americans are robots. That no one actually thinks rationally anymore.
I didn't read anything on Facebook that told me to vote for Donald Trump or against Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for Trump and I didn't vote for Clinton, because - without alleged Russian "meddling" - I knew both were vile, despicable creatures who should be allowed nowhere near the buttons of power.
But the author thinks Americans are somehow programmed by whatever words or videos or ads appear on the screens of the new boob-tube that has replaced the old one. That we are stupid, that we are children. Well, the author has forgotten that both Democrats and Republicans think this as well. And so does the NYT.
1
"Facebook" is a ludicrous, national, social disaster. ( Maybe international)
Facebook or any media of US origin...Regulate itself ,,,,,,,no of course not.....liberty to use our communications
without any governance....any rule of law....is an abrogation of what FCC
has already in place. We have a right to freedom of expression...but not
without a license....not a freedom to harm others ; and Facebook...is
a media without such restraints and is harming our security....and ...of
course should suffer the consequence of putting our national security at
dangerous risk....
Damage control....is not letting the proverbial "foxes in the henhouses
guard the 'chickens'.."....or we chickens will not survive.
The whole phenomenon of Facebook coincides with the rapid dumbing down of America. Hopefully people will eventually wake up and realize how utterly useless FB is. Read a book, fcs.
2
i read an article right here over the weekend from a foreign correspondent. his writing was "Facebook do not destroy my Democracy." that article along with this validates my refusal to ever have them in my life. It was just a few years ago Facebook was caught manipulating personal users feeds to see how they would react. at the time it didn't go over too well with American's. yeah Facebook is a bit too big for their britches.
1
This is a great example of how naked capitalism can institutionalize evil. It's too late for regulations to stop it. Facebook is worth half a trillion dollars. Imagine the lobbyists if its profits were threatened. It is up to us, the consumers. Stop using it. Go to Diaspora [diasporafoundation.org] or some other platform that doesn't data-rape you. Maybe Wikipedia could start up a social networking platform or P-to-P option. Even a pay-wall NYTimes social network would be preferable. FB is, and always has been, scamming it's users. It's like real estate agents. News Alert! They work for the seller, not the buyer. Soilent Green is people, people! And Sheryl Sandberg is not amazing. She's has figured out that being stupid-rich and powerful is a rush and that programming your kids is easy when you have a billion bucks. And that billion bucks was made by selling your data to companies who want to exploit you and also by selling advertisements to nefarious entities and international criminals. Zuckerberg is even worse. He spouts off his "I just want to connect humanity together" malarkey. He probably believes it too. These people must be delusional to be able to sleep at night.
Got that off my chest. Sorry for the rant, but I get so crazy watching my friends, family, and the world fall for this scam.
3
We should regulate stupidity? I was on Facebook and never used Farmville or Candy Crush. Why? Because it gave game developers access to my information. Pretty simple binary decision.
“Give out your information? Yes or No”
I’m off of Facebook now because updates often changed some setting related to privacy and I’d wonder how Joe Smith from the small village of Turnip Truck even saw my post.
That, combined with the obviously partisan posts and the moronic comment streams - Russian bots or no - led me to the conclusion that the platform is good for....well...nothing.
Facebook doesn’t need to be regulated. Let it just sink in it own cesspool of flotsam and jetsam and suffer an ignominious death.
1
Regulate Facebook?
Regulate gossip media?
Regulate gossip?
Where did freedom of speech go?
Is the phone company responsible for what people say on the phone, even a party line??
The gossip media are just big party lines.
Let them be.
If you don't like this, get a life!
OMG.
Facebook, Twitter and the entire 'social media' scene are useless depositories of simple-mindedness and frankly stupidity.
There is no need to 'control' them - they should simply be shut down, not by directives or laws, they should just be allowed to die (and they will).
I hate 'followers' (as opposed to leaders) and equally detest 'likes'. The rest doesn't fare any better.
People should just return to use common sense.
It is still out there, right in front of your nose.
1
I only got on Facebook at age 64 to join into a grammar school reunion event. Since then, I have made connections with some great people I knew in first grade. But I see why I always thought Facebook was a lame idea. In just two days this week, I have seen outrageously false stories about Bill Clinton having a pregnant mistress murdered (false) and about a retired American sergeant who killed two Syrian refugees for raping his daughter (false) These are two examples of fiction designed to enrage people and raise some cockeyed militancy. Why should Facebook allow such trash ? It couldn't be printed in your average newspaper. Where is the accountability for such blatant lies and character assassination ?
You want to regulate FB? Simple, get off it and stay off.
1
In the end, Facebook is an autocracy.
What do you expect ?
When social media was new it was so alluring. Everybody just jumped into the water without considering whether or not there were sharks lurking. Oh boy were they lurking ready to gobble up all the data about you they could glean. And Zuckerberg was/is the biggest of sharks despite how innocent he looks. How he bragged about never paying for news. Why should he when he can appropriate it. Let the NYT pay newsmen even if it cuts into the bottomline. How quaint. I'm sure they would feel restrained from taking ads from Russia. That too cuts into the bottomline. People of the world it is now the time to take a cold hard look at what technology has wrought and what the future might bring; privacy coming in last. Oh how old fashioned I am to want my privacy protected.
Me too. People think I'm nuts. I don't have a smartphone either. Friends can't understand how I get through life. Strange times.
If people were just smarter about what they are reading and how they react, especially now after the press about deliberate attempts to enrage us against each otehr (Russia is only one part of it), but they aren't, all knee-jerk with no critical thinking, and understanding the difference between facts and opinons, good reporting and analysis vs. junk, but they are unable.
Facebook COULD stop pushing "content" at us - I see crazy polarizing stuff from crazy polarizing-named groups popping up all the time, as well as ads: I can ignore, only to have it or something else from that group pop up again, or delete but then something else (more crazy stuff or ads) pops up. Some will let such things enrage them, either in the direction of the meme or against it and post screeds against each other. So, FB COULD stop pushing ANYTHNG and EVERYTING, let us connect with friends and search for groups on our own. How about it, FB?
1
Any firm that survives only on Advertising revenue has no reason to jeopardize the number of eyeballs. FB I is a Ponzi scheme. They instill fear in advertisers that if they don't spend at FB, their competitors will. It's nonsense as their ad click thru rates are close to random
1
Gossipy, rumor-mongering piece. Nothing to substantiate the sweeping claims made, no ideas for how to solve the issues raised . . .rather slanderous, actually given that the writer claims special inside knowledge.
What sort of crystal ball would be needed to see sufficiently into the future to legislate against any and all eventualities? Legislation which is unenforceable degrades and demeans our entire legal system.
It's odd to me that citizens are super riled up about their personal data being out there but no one I know even mentions that the US government was recently hacked (the actual code) and invaluable malware and spyware was stolen. Lots of it. And we do not know by whom. And it is being sold randomly on the internet for next to nothing, drip by drip. Sure I don't want Zappos to know my favorite shoe brand but in the scheme of devilment that is the internet I feel there are bigger fish to fry.
Here is an idea for media regulation---get off of it---read a book, go to the gym, volunteer, call your mother---life is too short to waste it on reading about favorite pets, restaurants, and cruises.
Wait, Zuckerberg lives in Lenin's Bay Area, does he not? This should surprise no one. Humans are nothing more than Stalin's trees in a night forest, right?
Another user said "FB is a common carrier, in that it controls the network used to access your friends and family in the digital age." That foolish belief is a real problem. If anyone is so stupid that they can't figure out how to stay in touch with friends & family WITHOUT using Farcebook, they deserve whatever they get. I don't know anyone who uses Farcebook as their primary medium for personal communication. But, I only associate with smart people, so your mileage may vary. If you want to "fix" Farcebook, walk away from it.
No, we cannot trust Facebook to regulate it's self.
I live around around employees and officers of Facebook and I see their regard for their community.
It's dismal and arrogant.
1
Nobody needs to tell me not to trust FB. This is a company founded by a dishonest immature boy who stole the idea from two creative individuals who sought his help. What else can one expect?
3
Facebook is evil and needs strong regulation.
3
Am I the only one who thinks that there's a really obvious solution?
GET OFF OF FACEBOOK.
7
Then how would everyone know what your breakfast, lunch and dinner looked like? Honestly, how do you expect people to live if they can't share such important information? What's the point of taking a cruise if you can't show the pictures two minutes after you take them? The travel business might shut down completely if people had to wait to share.
1
How about - don't sign up for a facebook account.
2
Facebook and Google represent the end of democracy.
3
Maybe the CEOs of FB should go to jail for selling clients information to third parties.
1
Self regulation is a rare entity in this world. That's why this anti-regulation theme of Libertarians and the Trump administration is such a boondoggle! This Trump Cabinet is set to undo any regulations they can get away with. What a farce!
4
I totally agree with this article. This decision should not be Facebook's to make. Congress needs to act, and act now as upcoming elections are closerthanthis. Facebook hid the truth of the 'Russian propaganda invasion' as they tried futilely to deal with it on their own without any dents being made into their colossal profitable media industry. Using Facebook Russia was also encouraging civil unrest and violence in America. Zuckerberg needs to be held accountable for this.
They are ill equipped to police themselves and this constitutes a conflict of interest anyway. They are not in charge of our national security and Congress needs make this clear by regulating them.
Where is their patriotism over profits at Facebook? They know as well as we do that our democracy is at stake here and we need protections from Putin's cyber warfare against America as well as more of the same from other foreign enemies and anti-democratic governments.
The battle field is now our cyber space and it is still being invaded. Maybe our U.S. intel community should be leaning on Congress as well as the rest of America in order to plug this hole. Does money mean more to Zuckerberg than total election chaos in America? He should welcome regulations as they will protect him from future criminal charges.
He is no American to me if patriotism is down at the bottom of his priority list. He is actually an accessory after the fact and appears to like that role. What a hypocrite.
3
Remember: If you're not paying for the product, you ARE the product. Act accordingly.
4
No surprise here. Moreover, just observe how Zuckerberg courts Xi Jinping. Can we expect any ethical principle initiated from within Facebook?
"...was a company that prioritized data collection from its users over protecting them from abuse. "
you don't say.
I'm glad you are finally speaking up (it's always nice to have those who "drank the cool aid" finally wake up to wants been going on (better late than never as they say) but this is like stating "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west"). Facebook, and many other tech companies are there "just to do good"...except when its the choice between ungodly sums of money and ethics... guess which will win. awwww... and Zuckerberg just wants all to be "one large open community"...while he cashes in on all of the data he has been given...for free...by every sucker who thinks time on Facebook replaces actually living one's life.
tell me, all you Facebook users...has that platform really made a difference in your life? selling your intimate desires to company for free...a company which has virtually no oversight on what they do with that knowledge and who doesn't care if any of it "gets lost"...so long as they make their money...
information about me is mine and should have the utmost protections by law from abuse or use without due compensation. the Europeans have a better idea about the 4th amendment than we do given their privacy laws... sad how we view them as "socialist" and therefore without any good ideas....
Facebook’s Custom Audience Targeting permits Facebook advertisers to target specific people or groups of people. Facebook says none of the ads thought to have been placed by Russians used “Custom Audiences Targeting based on personal information such as email addresses. The Russians who placed the ads did not use personal information about Facebook users.
Facebook says about “10 million people” in the United States—not 126 million Americans, as the article claims—saw “at least one” of the Russian political ads.
Facebook says that “44% of total ad impressions (number of times ads were displayed) were before the US election on November 8, 2016; 56% were after the election.” People who think $100,000 worth of Facebook advertising affected the election are delusional. Nearly $10 billion was spent on advertising during the 2016 election.
The Federal Election Campaign Act permits foreign nationals to place paid political ads that address campaign issues as long as they do not promote or disparage a specific candidate. Facebook says that most of the Russian ads address campaign issues, not candidates. Therefore, the majority of the suspected Russian ads were legal.
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivere...
Facebook, a 'monster in disguise', has captured digitally what we used to do in person, mingle around, write letters to each other, make appropriate calls and, horror, meet personally and able to express our feelings by touch. It won't disappear, for sure, but if unable to be responsible in accordance to it's might (the power of widely available information, true and false), and show some humility or temperance in it's daily doings and undoings, it must be regulated. Similarly, can you imagine the U.S.'s capitalistic system, where greed is becoming rampant 'a la Trump', without a modicum of regulation? It would be a nail in it's coffin. And if no remedy is sought by Facebook's bosses themselves, it's independence deserves to die.
1
It is chilling to learn that Facebook is a conduit for criminals. Worse that Facebook execs don’t care about the harm they are causing.
1
I can't count the hours I wasted on anti-social-media Facebook. Left completely one year ago. Can't say as I've missed it. Fake new, fights, ugh! If this is how we're going to interact with our fellow humans, we're doomed. Adios!
1
Precisely why I do not Book my Face.
1
Perhaps I'm anti-social but I was never seduced by any social media platform.
A few weeks back, however, in order to post a message on an article in HuffPo chastising them for having such an incestuous relationship with Facebook, I had to, of course, join Facebook to post that message.
In a moment of weakness fueled by the fact that not even Breitbart vets commenting readers like HuffPo, I joined.
Oh god, now i feel like some sort of digital prisoner. Every day, every single day, I get multiple e-mails from Facebook about "new notifications." And I've never even been to my Facebook page (presuming there is such a thing and/or that's what it's called). Hopefully by flagging those e-mails as spam, I, eventually, will no longer have them cluttering my inbox.
I hate Facebook.
4
"Our democracy is at stake."? Because of a computer app nobody is forced to use? Please.
I deleted my Facebook account last November, after a period of not using it for several months. I must say, I have not regretted the decision for one second. It’s made my relationships with people I actually care about, better, and has eliminated Facebook’s ability to market whatever they want in my direction (not to mention, I don’t see idiotic posts from high school acquaintances about how great Trump is). It’s disconcerting to me that one of the largest, most frequently used websites in the world does not care one iota about its users. It only cares about advertisers and dollars.
1
Facebook doesn't know me. Never has, never will.
2
How about this? Stop using Facebook. Silly, I know.
1
I can no longer count the number of letters I have received from companies telling me, one, that the protection of my personal information is their highest priority and, two, that they have lost it.
If you are reading this you obviously have an online presence. The ship carrying your personal information has sailed. Deal with it.
I neither facebook nor twitter or any of the other garbage companies. Why anyone would agree (or in the case of these companies "not able to opt out") give all of their lives to someone else so they can manipulate it for profit is insane. When Zuck wants to start a religion, that literally makes him insane.
Trump, his GOP co-conspirators and judicial appointees apparently don’t want regulations on anything except perhaps how a woman chooses to use her reproductive capabilities. Banking fiduciary malfeasance? Environmental poisoning? For-profit prisons? More Trump University scams? Overt voter suppression?...have at it.
But try to exercise your rights over your own body?....watch out, they will get you!
1
Facebook was designed to “serve man.”
Just look up the Twilight Zone episode.
(Hint: it’s not a happy ending)
I don't need any encouragement to stay away from Facebook. I've always found it creepy and off-putting. But I'm not sure Mr. Parakilas is in any position to chide the company for its cutthroat business model: for the past three years he's been a product manager for Uber. Where to next? Goldman Sacks? Monsanto?
You are no longer a customer.
You are the product.
Your data is bought and sold with little restriction and without your knowledge.
You'd also be surprised that you have no real right to see all of this data if you wanted it, even though it could cost you a job or a bank loan. This is serious business. It needs serious regulation
1
Not often I get to really laugh at the Gray Lady and her minions of totalitarianism.
A former and obviously disgruntled employee calls for increased regulation of a private organization.
Of course, she offers zero evidence of any wrong doing just apocrypha.
Allow me to point out that any regulation violates the First Amendment outright. That the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 limits the authority of the Federal Government to just certain specific arenas and the private communications is most assuredly not one of those that the Congress can stick its nose into.
Facebook while a publically traded corporation, which can be regulated on the finance side, is primarily a public forum (and beyond any regulation) and a news agency (also beyond regulation).
I think it is time that the New York Times be honest with the public, much of the editorial policy is currently being driven by the Boards overt hate for the idea that the American people rejected Hillary. This is just another lash out. At a target the Board feels contributed to their failure.
1
Has anyone noticed that the pervasiveness of Facebook also undermines copyright protections? I resigned from FB after but I continue be assaulted by chain emails of pictures that were taken from someone else's conglomeration of pictures, jokes and urban myths compiled from other FB users who have lifted them from a line of other posts that eventually lead back to someone's copyrighted material.
1
"Facebook prioritized data collection over protecting users from abuse."
If they had not prioritized data collection they probably wouldn't be in business today and this whole article would be irrelevant. If I had been CEO of Facebook in its early days It probably wouldn't have occurred to me that abuse was at all a likelihood since it was essentially an on- line family album and abuse by a family album is certainly a rarity.
Once abuse becomes apparent it obviously must become a priority.
Facebook is no different than most of the internet. It is a for-profit commercial activity where people will do and say anything to make a buck. They'll mine your information and sell it to all comers in spite of the fact that they promise not to. They use your information to tailor what you see -- with the idea that if you continue to see stuff that you like you will never leave their site.
The idea that Facebook might control itself is laughable. If people want reliable information DON'T get anything from Facebook. Go to vetted news sites -- virtually any big online newspapers in the country. And then check two or three to make sure you get the same story. Don't have the time? You will be lied to and it's your fault.
A side note: Broadcast television and radio are in a slightly different position in interpretation of free speech laws. Those media buy rights to free space TV and radio broadcast bandwidth from the government because it is limited. That privilege has led to legal controls on coverage that simply don't apply to exclusively internet sources.
1
I fail to see why corporate ownership of TV and radio stations provides free speech protections that wouldn't be allowed to Internet sites.
Right now, as we sit here, independent media is being squeezed out of its biggest outlets (Facebook and YouTube) in a largely manufactured uproar about 'fake news' and ad revenue supporting extremism (largely of the white nationalist variety). This is undoubtedly being applauded, if not actively assisted, by older the political and media establishment who realise that their relevance is rapidly declining.
The absurd suggestion that $100,000 in Facebook ads (half of which was spent AFTER the election!) is being used as justification for a serious assault on what little dissenting media we have. Make no bones about it. A mixture of HRC trying to deflect even the slightest bit of blame for the election and the establishment further clenching its fists (regardless of the increasing number of star-systems slipping through their fingers) has brought us here....not any imagined 'hack' of the 2016 election.
All that said the privacy concerns with tech companies is very, very serious and I'm glad to see it get a prominent airing here. We need serious, meaningful legislation to protect what little privacy we have left. Using an online service should not necessitate signing over 100% of your privacy, whatever Facebook would have us belief. Of course, such legislation will never come to pass as the US gov'mt benefits from this breach of privacy far too much to want to get rid of it...
You say that online regulation is solely being pushed by big media due to their declining revenue. This my have some validity, but adds DO impact voters. If they didn’t, Republicans and Democrats (and their PACs) wouldn’t spend millions of dollars on them. As far as our elections are concerned, it’s a pretty simple regulation. Print and Television adds require the identification of who’s promoting (spending for) the add. We need this same tagging of ANY online election adds to protect our legal right to know who’s spending/approving adds that are trying to sway our political decisions.
As for the Russian adds, based on the imperial knowledge that Democrats and Republicans KNOW advertising aids in impacting voters decisions, the Russians placing adds DID impact some number of votes, that’s inevitable.
The writer conflates two separate issues as if they were the same.
She mostly talks about Facebook making its user data available to anyone who will pay. The solution to this issue seems obvious: Don't use Facebook. Or, don't use it to share information you don't want the whole world to know. This lesson is repeatedly told to anyone who will listen.
She also mentions Russian trolls commenting on the election, and ends with "our democracy is at stake". Foreign governments have tried to influence Americans and their elections as long as we have had elections. Anyone who thinks our democracy can be undermined by internet trolls should ponder the implications of this belief: If voters are so manipulable that phony internet stories can sway them, then what is the justification for allowing them to vote? Is our faith in our fellow citizens really that low?
Ms. Parakilas says that we can't trust Facebook to regulate itself. This may be true, but I don't think we can trust anyone else to regulate it, either.
1
Sandy's description of Republican fantasy industry will self-regulate is as old as the hills. Conservatives long ago thought robber barons would ensure workplace safety and turn away from child labor until people realized they never would without government intervention. Then Reagan came along after cutting his teeth as a pitchman for GE to denigrate public service and environmental protection and workplace safety, and all we got was Trump, the tea party circus, and Facebook whose owners never learned loose lips sink ships in every age.
1
It's so simple: "Just delete your account!"
Ahem. Social media has been deliberately designed to be addictive. This fact needs to be taken into account.
The idea of regulating Facebook has more in common with tobacco companies than other media companies.
4
Boycott Facebook. This piece pushed me over the edge. I am deactivating my personal account to preserve a remnant of privacy.
3
There is a much simpler solution to this problem: don't have a Facebook account.
4
I am so glad I don't have a Facebook account. And deleted my WhatsApp account after FB purchased it.
Imagine what a secret service agency could do with this treasure trove, if they had no morals. Oh wait....
When has self-regulation ever worked? In the church? Police departments? Military? Corporations? Congress?
Of course we shouldn't trust any corporation to regulate itself.
Yet again, we could follow the example of Europe to see how "grown up" countries deal with consumer privacy. But that would be, well, un-American.
1
Why...? For the same reason that tax cuts don't create new jobs, no one is going to invest or spend money they do not have to. Thus FB is not going to properly monitor the ting that is generating their income because they know that will cost money as well as limit some of that income unless they are made to do it. Ditto nearly all business.
It really is that simple. The whole fake economic model of the wealthy in this country since 1980 tells you that. They don't talk about and it seems actively hide the fact that the greatness we had prior to deregulation was because they were by law, mainly the tax code, required to create jobs and build factories and otherwise seek to maintain the stability of their industry with some of their profits. The reagan GOP economic model is one of relying on the largess of people we know to be at best uninterested in creating one single job they do not have to create.
I wish the author had gotten into the FB technology a bit more. Facebook's system architecture is view-able on-line and on every slide "massive amounts of data" and "need for high performance" are used as key engineering goals.
That's basically antithetical to command and control. The HTML for web pages is rendered dynamically, and uniquely. What goes into the pages is selected from "Memchached"; which can't hold much metadata without killing storage capacity.
Content is determined by "services layer" that invoke one or more services that operate independently and without regard to security and privacy. This is the logical point at which to exert those controls.
Other places to insert C&C (command and control) are "Scribe" - the logging framework, and the "Haystack store" which contains metadata, which the Haystack Cache does not. The former will tell you were "bad information" is coming from and going to; and the latter be filtered to find and label "cyber propaganda". Not in real time, but "near real time".
There are solutions here, and Facebook has the money to find them, if they chose.
1
I accept the arguments of the author , but I'm left with doubts about why the data collection alone is an invasion of privacy, so often cited by those who object . The business model of FB led them to finance the operation using paid advertisers because they felt that subscription fees for users would have put the brakes on the whole matter. The real problem is their reticence to police fake news and false political assassination posts which can not be verified. They bear more responsibility for the 2016 election debacle than any entity.
Mark Zuckerberg has little concern for our democracy. Or your privacy.
I closed my Facebook account when the scandal broke. I do not need to support this giveaway of our government and our privacy.
3
A Washington Post article today cited new research that teen depression and suicide rates have spiked along with the spread of Facebook and other social media, so these platforms' insidious invasion into our lives could have all sorts of devastating impacts. It seems that many teens are spending so much time on Facebook that they're not interacting with peers in person (forging real friendships), not spending time with their families, not sleeping enough and not getting enough healthy activity. They're just addicted to the screen, increasingly desperate for "likes "and devastated by negative comments.
1
This is exactly why I think Facebook's hiring of 1000 people to look over the mediation and flagging of posted material is hypocritical. They can do much better than that without having to hire new people. All it would take is a tweaking of the algorithm that populates the News Feed and a better oversight of who's buying which type of ads.
The goal of FB is to maximize profit and anything else comes later. Fake news makes money for FB and this exactly what they are doing every day- to make money.
So, a platform originally intended to help geeks find dates, and then the idea of "oh, we can become geek rock stars with this!" to "oh, we can make money with this, get rich!". Why would anyone have trusted this setup to be confidential and to protect its members?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of FB users don't and won't care about this privacy invasion. We are too consumed in our daily lives, and FB is a pleasant diversion and addiction. So what if FB has all my pics, birthday, friends names, shopping habits, and GPS whereabouts. Lifelock can fix that, right?
"The message was clear: The company just wanted negative stories to stop. It didn’t really care how the data was used."
It doesn't have to be a question of whether they care or not. It's actually likely much simpler, and much closer to the quoted executive's words: everyone is at least somewhat aware that, if one were to really go looking, you'd find that a substantial, substantial portion of usage, revenue, etc. is coming from at best questionable uses, forbidden ones at worst. But they generally come from the mid- and long-tail, not the big customers, so it's easy to hide behind "we're just a platform, it's not scalable to review/moderate everyone's use" etc.
These executives know, as do their counterparts at other tech companies: once you start pulling those strings, the whole thing unravels, so everyone would rather look the other way.
1
Yes, Facebook's has shown it's indifference to all but money. But before we put the government fox in the chicken coop, let's be sure we what we are talking about here. The over-reach in our executive and legislative branches give us cause for concern in general. But who knows how access to peoples social information could be used by politicians and police agencies. Politics, like sex is good and lately not.
2
Do you really think that the Fox and the Hen aren't yet working together?
It must be an addictive thing: to be on facebook. Getting off facebook would be a protection against one's personal info being used by advertisers etc. I got off facebook two months ago. I wonder if the info about me is still circulating? In a so called free economy one would think that other companies could design competitors for facebook!
FB ethics?
I'm sure the majority of fb's employees know this is happening but do not want to rock the boat and lose their jobs - young, rich, big tech jobs, big pay, expensive lifestyle and no ethics?
Again the question myself and fellow users are asking is, "do we need fb?"
I cut cable a month ago due to high charges, now I will strongly consider deleting my fb account due to fb's lack of putting users as a priority and lack of ethics.
“Strongly consider” without actually cancelling is exactly what Facebook is counting on.
Why the hatred and bad image of regulation by business and politics of a certain party? All throughout nature, humans benefit greatly from appropriate regulation. Your own body achieves a plateau of good health and well-being for a number of adult years due to regulation at ALL of its levels, cellular, organelles, organ, full body, behavior. Without that regulation any one of these many numbered levels would overcome balances and cause disease. That is what happens in cancer for example. Good regulations go bad. Death results as it will in the body politic AND business enterprise without reasonable regulations. Yet some sectors of our population insist on absolutely no regulation, but the death itself that results from absence of regulation. Greed and exploitation result from resisting appropriate regulation. As citizens, we must insist on legislative regulation.
1
"Facebook needs to be regulated more tightly ..."
No, a discussion of ethics is long overdue. Neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg nor any senior management at Facebook have any sense of ethics. Arguably, few if any in Silicon Valley ever consider ethics as something to be considered in making business decisions. Harvey Weinstein had his enablers: 'assistants,' lawyers, private investigators; Computer engineers and programmers and "manager of the team responsible for protecting users on the developer platform from abuse of their data" are the enablers of the monstrosities that are Facebook and Google.
1
No company or industry can be trusted to regulate itself. That's why we need laws and a government.
2
I am one of the few people on the planet that isn't on Facebook. Early on I read somewhere that on line, if you get something for free, you and your data are the product. Cautionary words for the world to come. And happily, I don't feel that I'm missing anything important.
2
We are part of the problem. Let me rephrase that. We are the problem. If you put every little detail about your life out on the internet to be shared with hundreds of your friends, why will a corporation care to protect your information? While I can see some benefit to having a network like Facebook in times of emergencies, I see no reason for the mindless chatter that goes on there day in and day out. Don't want your privacy compromised? Don't put it in the hands of a business. Even government is unable to protect your information any longer, why do you think a corporation would?
1
All of this back-and-forth about whether Facebook really wants to regulate ANYTHING of itself is well and good. But, the FACT is that they have created something over which they no longer have any control.
The smart programs they created have taken on a life of their own and have spread into every nook and cranny of our lives. They resist attempts to regulate them primarily because the developers, themselves, don't know how!
The computer system in the book 'Colossus' began to think on it's own and discovered a similar machine in Russia. It's message was, "There is another machine!" Facebook was created to allow and foster individuals to share and communicate with each other. When all items were opened up for the World to see, the developers lost control of the system. Talk about 'Big Data!' There is so much there that humans cannot grasp the import, much less place bounds on it.
Requiring Facebook to regulate anything is a fool's errand. The monster has achieved such a broad reach that they simply don't know how! Thus, Sandberg vamps, obfuscates, and muddles an issue about which she hasn't a clue as to how to 'fix' it.
This is all of capitalism, in a weak democracy. It's not limited to social media. This is how our water and air get polluted, how our credit cards and insurance rip us off, how our roads and bridges fall into disrepair. There is way more to worry about than just social media companies gone wild.
Even after the known issues with Russian and fake accounts created to inflame real users, Facebook offers few tools to even offer "crowd" controls for users to report problematic stories and fake accounts. So, they have done close to nothing to improve.
How nice for Facebook to have the First Ammendment to offer a blanket excuse and big data to obsure what they really know.
So if Mark Zuckerberg runs for President of the United States or or if he supports other political candidates, will he use Facebook users' personal data to 'target' voters?
FYI: people CAN be on FB without putting up pictures of themselves, without giving any or real information other than their email account (which admittedly can lead to some other information), even use an alias name, but they can't easily control other people tagging them in the other people's posted photos unless they are on frequently or even constantly.
We can't trust Facebook period. It is nothing but a big mistake.
15
Why would anyone expect any company to regulate itself? Trusting a company to police itself is like putting a 6 year old alone in a candy shop and telling him that he can't have any candy.
6
I find many of the comments posted regarding this story quite silly because they are being posted by Anonymous, and I am too. Does the Constitution allow you the individual to lie, spread falsehoods and slander? Yes it does. An anonymous person is like a person who shouts No! during a vote in an assembly. You can lie and cheat all you want like Trump and be protected by the 4th but no I don't want you to make profits on that unless the rights of the collective are protected.
If the Constitution protects your free speech as an individual, why would Facebook -a huge company- get a free ride? Merely because it is a computer platform serving thousands of like-minded Anons? Is a collective of users equal to or better than the individuals' rights?
Unfettered capitalism is what libertarians and other sorts of fools want. I don't want unfettered capitalism because someone has to have a guiding hand on the tiller and I'd prefer that to be you and me as a collective rather than Zuckerberg. We know what's best - not a few geeks with boatloads of data on our habits.
Congress should set up rules of engagement (regulate) all social media platforms. One rule I'd like to see is to force them to disclose how -in huge letters- the ads and articles posted on their platforms are paid for.
I choose not to use Facebook at all. But my stepsons think everything posted there is true because they are young impressionable millennials and believe everything they squint at on their phones.
2
Thank you for this. The sad fact is 95% of Facebook users have no idea that they and their personal information are the products being sold to advertisers, who are the actual customers. Facebook users are enticed by the “free” services and conveniences the platform offers, with no conception of how the back end works. If this gullible generation has swallowed Facebook as its primary source of information and communication - ugh. You do have to ask yourself if you trust Mark Zuckerberg with all your personal information. Nice guy I’m sure, but ...
4
What we need to do with Facebook is to figure out a way to prevent it from re-publishing any “news” items. Period.
The First Amendment clearly prevents the government from stopping Facebook from publishing anything they want (short of hard-core porn or libelous material). But all “legitimate” journalistic enterprises (TV networks, newspapers, magazines, etc.) could band together to assert their copyright protections by threatening to sue Facebook for any of their original reporting from being re-posted on Facebook.
If all the legitimate media were to effectively boycott Facebook – the word would quickly spread that the only “news” on Facebook was by definition from illegitimate sources. Soon even credulous and gullible Facebook users (apparently the majority of them) would come to realize that anything remotely resembling “news” on Facebook would be “fake news”.
Now some would continue to wallow in the sewer of fake news – which would be the only “news” left on Facebook. They are beyond redemption.
But hopefully the vast majority of Facebook users would learn to “go to the source” for their news – rather than relying on the Facebook algorithms designed to pander to their pre-existing misconceptions and fears for their news.
If global journalism wishes to maintain its integrity, it must band together and boycott Facebook (and similar, unprincipled “social media” outlets). Otherwise, the journalistic equivalent of Gresham’s Law (“bad money drives out good”) will prevail.
2
Bust the trusts. Regulate the attention brokers.
1
And this is why I don't use Facebook.
8
If the gun industry can regulate itself successfully, certainly Facebook can as well. Our legislators are rightly focused on tax cuts and Bill & Hillary.
3
Utter nonsense. Who says the gun industry can regulate itself?
Bill and Hillary are so "yesterday." The stories today are Roy Moore, Russian collusion, tax ripoffs to give the 1% a ton more money, and global warming.
Facebook and Google are effectively a media duopoly.
And the days of "Do No Evil" and plucky little Zuckerberg and his hoodie—which were all PR-constructed, media-enabled myths from the beginning—are long since over.
Break them up now.
6
Facebook has every incentive to boost its subscriber numbers and absolutely none to police what was being posted
2
There's a poetic justice to all this: much of Facebook is about catering to narcissism: "Look at me, look at what I did last night, look at what I ate, look at what I'm doing right now." Thousands of years of myths, fables, folktales, religious allegories, apparently haven't taught us enough about the toxicity of self-centered self-love. In the proverbial grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem coincidental that a hostile foreign power could exploit a platform aimed at feeding narcissim to help elect a dangerous narcissist who is easily manipulated with flattery and self-gratification.
5
This is why I don't use Facebook anymore. And it makes me laugh that people will boycott NFL games, but they won't boycott Facebook. A hypocritical stance for sure.
3
Privacy is a myth; get over it.
Ralph Nader would be proud of most of you. You obviously believe in a Nanny State where people are "protected" from themselves. I use facebook daily and have no delusions about security, I accept responsibility for what I post and my profile. Facebook is Free Enterprise in an open market.
1
Exactly! I suspect most commenting here are simply Luddites who don't really understand how to use modern technology.
Parakilas: "Facebook needs to be regulated more tightly, or broken up so that no single entity controls all of its data."
Parakilas conflates two completely distinct subjects, privacy and advertising, and concludes that they need to be "regulated" in the same way.
The obvious fallacy is that advertising is *public* by definition. Further, regulation of advertising must entail regulation of speech.
Parakilas never even mentions Facebook's privacy policy (called "data policy" by Facebook), and the options that Facebook users have when Facebook violates its privacy policy.
Parakilas: "The company won’t protect us by itself, and nothing less than our democracy is at stake."
That's ridiculous. The alleged Russian ads are no more problematic than ads from PACs or political parties. As for privacy, Facebook would respond to lawsuits if there were grounds for them. There is no need for government regulation of either.
Facebook's Terms and Data Policy are online. Parakilas should discuss those instead of fretting about "our democracy".
Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
2017-11-20 07:02:33 UTC
7
"Russian ads are no more problematic..."
Ok, why are ISIS ads not problematic then? Both are presumed US adversaries.
Does it have something to do with Russian hair, skin, eye color and nose shape?
Have you forgotten that Russia is the only nuclear power that had threatened to annihilate the US - at the UN, no less - and acted upon it, as evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis?
Somehow I conclude from your friendly assessment of Russian attacks on the foundation of this country that it's ok to do it as long as the perpetrators look like the white majority of this country. That is the only apparent reason China, ISIS, North Korea, and Central American drug cartels are not ok and Russia is, for you.
Facebook's "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" is the usual legalese that essentially says "we're not responsible for anything". It's debatable whether Russian ads are no more problematic than ads from PACs or political parties. The Russian ads have one purpose: to divide us and destabilize the country. While the others often tend to have the same effect they are at least subject to some controls.
MKC:
Here is what the Statement of Rights and responsibilities that you linked actually says at the very bottom:
By using or accessing Facebook Services, you agree that we can collect and use such content and information in accordance with the Data Policy as amended from time to time. You may also want to review the following documents, which provide additional information about your use of Facebook:
[list of 10 further documents follows that statement]
They also say:
Other
If you are a resident of or have your principal place of business in the US or Canada, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook, Inc. Otherwise, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook Ireland Limited. References to “us,” “we,” and “our” mean either Facebook, Inc. or Facebook Ireland Limited, as appropriate.
This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.
...
You will not transfer any of your rights or obligations under this Statement to anyone else without our consent.
All of our rights and obligations under this Statement are freely assignable by us in connection with a merger, acquisition, or sale of assets, or by operation of law or otherwise.
...
So they have the right to transfer the agreement, but YOU do not.
Anyone who agrees to terms like that deserves whatever happens to them.
It's a scoial club. To expect them to santize everything memebers do, is reaching.
In today's societal climate, fostered by the very people claiming they've been violated by Russians, the 'whatever floats your boat' behavior endorsed and sanctioned by Progressives, has come home to roost. For they're asking themselves to police themselves, and none of them want policed for their own behavior.
I'd be glad to pay a subscription fee to Facebook, since I value it for its most basic functions of keeping in touch with friends and family, even cousins I've never met (yet) in person. In the meantime, I have privacy settings set as high as possible; always use Facebook by itself in an incognito browser; only "like" personal posts as opposed to shares; don't click on links to media - instead I search for the stories in a different browser; and block ads and most content (although I haven't figured out how to do this on mobile devices.) FB still knows a lot about me, but I THINK I'm mostly aware of what they're sharing.
1
"We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself"
You can shorten that sentence.
3
Right, not news that Facebook is a gross abuser of privacy.
However:
"As the world contemplates what to do about Facebook in the wake of its role in Russia’s election meddling, "
What Russian election meddling? Really, every time the likes of this paper have said "but see" the evidence has been a joke--like a few tens of thousands of dollars in FB ads that ran in red states mean something.
And the Times has never presented any evidence that the minor amount of FB ads were tied to the Russian state.
In other words, this essay, includes a good deal of fake news. Now, I know that's allowed in opinion essays, but the inclusion weakens the point that if you care about privacy, you don't use Facebook.
Pretty simple: Don't use Facebook. We have been aware for years of the abuses of Facebook so please don't play the innocents. You have a choice to continue to use Facebook (and Google) or not... I have never had a Facebook profile and never will. If the NSA wants to track me, let them put some effort into it.
6
Call me cynical, but the likelihood of any kind of regulation by a president who benefited from Russia's manipulation of Facebook, an administration that is methodically ripping up the Code of Federal Regulations page by page, and a GOP congress that prioritizes donors over the American public is, as my mama would say, slim and none.
4
How's that saying go....'If the on-line service you're using is free, then you're the product being sold'. Liberate yourself from Facebook by deleting your account. I've never felt better or more certain of my actions.
4
The EU is taking steps to help data privacy concerns with GDPR, General Data Protection Regulations, that take effect in May. The regulations aren't really "government overreach" if a company has already had a history of taking personal information privacy seriously. That leaves a lot of US companies out and right now they're panicked because of the financial penalties they could incur if they have data from EU citizens.
The basic premise behind GDPR is that a company has to do three things:
Let the individual who uses the service know what data is being collected and how its being used.
Give the individual the ability to change or delete data that's stored at the company (and the company's vendors)
Get explicit consent from the individual that shows s/he understands what data is being collected and why.
There are special categories for children's data and other groups.
This can be regulated fairly easily and without any intrusion into people's lives. All individuals have to do is understand what and why their data is being taken. But, here in the US the rights of the corporation outweigh the rights of the individual so I'm not sure it will happen.
4
We have an electoral system so fragile that a relativelay small set of gullible voters in an odd grouping of states gets determine the most powerful person in the world. Somehow that’s Facebook’s fault?
You need to read the article.
So who will you trust, the Trump Administration? A Department of Justice run by Jeff Sessions? Or maybe a judiciary system being packed with unqualified judges?
1
They want to control the American media and they going to use the soft minded liberals to do so. Sensor facebook & the entire internet while they at it. Since when do they have the right to decide what ideas we are allowed to be exposed to and who we are allowed to associate with. Policing our minds?
A legitimate US company cannot sell a warplane to just any paying customer.
But 2016 had proved that a selective delivery of even true stories is deadly for the US. Just flood the voters with carefully selected true/truish stories about Hillary and swamp/block anything else.
Will the US public accept that a legitimate US company cannot accept an paid order to deliver a true/truish story to the readers selected by the customer? "Foreign order prohibition" will not work, there will be domestic proxies if need be, origin of information is not traceable.
So there would have to be state censors. And I do not see how this would work. Such censorship would need to take down Fox, Breibart etc, there is little difference between Fox and "Russia direct" in terms of values, content and methods. So what would be the censorship criteria?
Also, FB essential business model is in that FB does not have to pay human editors to understand what they publish, AI does the publishing. So what, FB will develop an AI which understands what "patriotic" means? But we have human "patriotic Republicans" today, for whom Russian help is just fine. What poor AI would be supposed to do?
And BTW, those accepted ruble payments were a clear "all parties know what is going on and hereby accept it" agreement. I bet rubles were used on purpose, kind of "do not say we are sneaky" statement.
1
So now we know that not only does Facebook facilitate fake news, the site
itself is not what it appears to be. So why not call it what it is -
Fakebook.
2
Fakebook. BRILLIANT! -- I have no idea why this comment isn't a 'NYT Pick'.
I'm not sure regulation or a break-up would really do the trick. I'm of the opinion if you want Facecrack to stop collecting and selling your data, quit using Facecrack...what a revelation!
4
I’ve long said it and I’ll say it again: Facebook is a scourge. It should be shut down.
3
Just take it on faith that if you use any Internet media your entire collection of data, personal, business or mixed, is exposed just as if you left signed blank checks lying around.
Internet Media is in business to make money by selling your information. It makes little sense to assume that they will voluntarily take the proverbial ink out of their $$$ printing presses.
3
Why aren’t Zuckerberg and other execs at FB being prosecuted for treason? Didn’t the company take money from foreign governments and their agents to influence to disrupt a national election?
3
On a Facebook time out for a post taken entirely out of context and reported by an active troll, I just give up. This 'person' had copied my content for years. Bizarre indeed. Posting something from my account from over 9 years ago? Whoa.
But FB never picked it up and I wonder how many accounts of friends and acquaintances were compromised because of this person, bot, troll.
So I'm on a timeout, looking for other options for reasonable, rational online discussion which we used to do in the late 1980s.
And don't say Google+. The crazies are almost worse there.
1
Just say NO to Facebook. I closed my account when my brother and my dads wife blocked me shortly after my father passed away. Cyber bully's can be your own family members.
The Facebook eco system is mired in pain and disinformation. When the whole Trump build up was happening on Facebook, I posted the nude photos of his wife Melanie and asked what if Obamas wife had posed nude, and was told I was a hateful person by a "friend" on Facebook.
There is no value for humanity in Facebook. It is merely a data mining scheme. Stop using it and encourage your children to stop as well.
Once the system goes down we will all be safer.
1
This has been common knowledge for years. Every decision FB makes is based on increasing the amount of time users spend on FB so they can give the company more personal information.
Zuckerberg may have started with good intentions, but FB has quickly paved a road to you know where full of unintended consequences.
If you have not canceled your FB account, how many more warnings do you need?
3
Closed out an account because it was on "auto-Friend" mode, adding friends without invitations... obnoxiously Facebook was drumming up its own business.
2
We are still wandering around in our own lack of understanding as to what Facebook really is and what it really does. Too many new points of contact have been created among the issues of security, privacy, human sociabillity, rumor, fact, information, free speech, advertising, consumer monetization, and government regulation (or lack of it).
In one sense, Facebook is being tarred with the fact that "fake accounts" cropped up among its 1 billion registered (but often active) accounts. That's not really their fault.
Until we have a system to validate user identities, require validated identities any time information is publicly shared or distributed, or actions are taken online in commerce or forums -- and add to those validated identities a score indicating "honest actors", in the same way our credit score confirms our trustworthiness in financial transactions -- little substantive improvement can be achieved.
Meanwhile Facebook profits from online behavior and tracks its users all over the web (those little Facebook "f" icons do the trick), in the same way the sheepherder watches his sheep and profits from their wool. Jaron Lanier is right that we sheep should see some of that profit for ourselves, and be able to hang onto our wool if we want to. That will cut hard into advertiser and corporate prerogatives. But the same interests fought a "do not call" registry, and have profited fine despite it.
4
There are ways to avoid giving Facebook a ton of information. Do not share with everyone. Do not click on their links. Use Facebook with the understanding that if you don't want certain things about you out there they should not be posted on Facebook at all. Do not put out opinions about your job on Facebook or even LinkedIn. Remember to set things to be as private as possible. Don't post pictures of yourself, your children, or anyone else. Do not tell people on Facebook about your birthday.
In short, treat Facebook and every other social media site like it's unprotected, spying on you, and not trustworthy. They will not protect your information. They have no interest in doing so if it costs them advertiser dollars.
4
I agree that Facebook's corporate culture means it can never be trusted. They don't just help advertisers target ads (like Google). FB sells data about individual identifiable users and makes it no longer controllable, just as the article says. They may restrain themselves occasionally, but have always quietly gone back to their old ways.
Most people have already shared too much with Facebook - like primary email address, cell phone no., address book, etc. Users can make themselves safer and less valuable to FB to some extent with FB's own settings (many guides outline how). They still data-mine everything they can about you. So to hold back a little info:
Only access FB with a browser in Private or Incognito mode, log off when you're done and close the browser. Use privacy extensions on your browser Don't use their mobile apps - 3rd party ones are available or use a mobile browser in Private mode. Don't click on any ads in FB. Don't use FB as authentication for other sites.
3
Good News: Facebook does not own the computer. That is the problem with making a product that depends on someone else's invention. The person who invented the computer is in power, is in control. As a highly ranked person in the Education, University System, I encourage people to work on products that are original and not "riding off of" someone else. Dependency is awful in the BusinessWorld. Imagine when all of the Oil runs out (for example). Independence is the best position. So, I have been waiting for these Facebook-type companies to be taken over by more responsible, and essentially "knowing" original computer people. If not, then I expect the computer will go down with the ship, and a New Product will take over, with new people in control, in charge. Something other than the original computer.
4
This seems to me that same issue we have with credit-reporting agencies: A large, centralized database of personal information accumulates with little knowledge or control of the persons affected.
It seems to me that each state should declare each such aggregator a fiduciary of the personal data it collects, with the sensitive data classes (e.g., SSN's, friend ID's) clearly defined. Then any harmful release of information would be an actionable breach of trust, with attorney's fees and treble damages awardable.
8
I have found it very easy to regulate facebook. I don't use it. Never had an account. Never will.
On another note, regarding the much ballyhooed total number of "users." Are these actual people using facebook, or are they simply the number of registered accounts? I have personal knowledge of people registering additional accounts under the names of their dogs and cats.
10
“The company just wanted negative stories to stop. It didn’t really care how the data was used.”
They just wanted to boost the stock price, and stop anything that could lower it. It’s worked. $500 billion! Wow. Way to go!
3
Wouldn't it make more sense to legislate universal rules governing the appropriate collection, use, and storage of personal information? Facebook is one company. Regulating Facebook specifically is relatively pointless though. Equifax accomplished incredible damage with much less information. How can we target one company while another is humming along in contented indifference? We a need a mechanism to hold all companies accountable if they're going to collect data. There's currently no way to shine a light on the backend of the data industry, Facebook or otherwise.
10
Strongly agree. Facebook's ad platform is unfortunately the ideal vehicle for serving up propaganda. The devil's bargain users have made for free services in exchange for our private data will come back to haunt us all.
In the days leading up the Nov 2016 USA presidential election, my home state of Wisconsin was specifically targeted, and my Facebook feed was filled with nonsense whose primary tone was to toxify anything related to the election, to make it radioactive. That disenfranchisement of individuals from their own ability to see clearly is exactly what propaganda seeks to accomplish (see 'How Propaganda Works' by Jason Stanley).
Facebook needs to decide who it will be when it grows up, and soon. Either it is a self-regulating company who has a social mission statement and responsibilities that circumscribe its function as an ad platform or it is a raw (and rapacious) algorithm for simply micro-targeting its users.
Evidence to date suggests the former mission has been obscured by the latter, and that a bubble of tech arrogance separates Facebook's shareholders from their users.
74
Last I checked participation in FB is voluntary. If one is worried about privacy simply don't join. Works like a charm. The solution to every problem isn't more government regulation, and if you view everything posted on Facebook and Twitter as fact-based news, you've got bigger problems than privacy.
7
Even as someone who usually loves regulation, my heart was warmed by this comment. This is indeed a case where individual people can fix, or at least prevent, their own problem!
1
This suggestion is fine on the surface, but ignores a more fundamental issue, namely, that Facebook has become a major source of information and communication. To suggest simply ceasing to use it sounds fine, but is not realistic in today’s society. As a comparison, what would you say about data thieves who clone your cell phone and then use your phone number to steal cell service? If you are unhappy about that, are you willing to simply choose not to use a cell phone? What about a phishing scam that gains access to your computer and passwords and email accounts? Well, if you don’t like that, simply stop using a computer. How about those pesky red light runners on the road who make it dangerous for other drivers? Simple solution: stop driving, and you won’t have to be bothered. It takes government intervention to assure the smooth functioning of civil society when technologies become public goods, and this op/ed highlights the need in this case. By the way, full disclosure: I have stopped using FB myself until they clean up their act!
1
It’s the bigger picture. Look at what happened.
Social media companies Facebook, Twitter, and others try to deceive themselves and us by earnestly chanting (pretending to believe?) corporate “visions” and marketing messages of “improving lives” and creating “communication for every one to stay connected.” They drink their own multi-billion-dollar Kool Aid and pretend - these masters of the universe - they just hadn’t thought about implications of taking money for American Presidential political ads paid for in rubles. Or whether our personal information belongs to the persons. Or fill in the blanks for the latest real world practicality that must not get in the way of the next big IPO.
We let them get away with their feel-good words but worse for us, their irresponsible greed. Money. We’re all enchanted by stories of young entrepreneurs hitting the big jackpot. Distracts us minions from the squeeze on our own wages.
Thanks to the author for a rare glimpse of honesty and responsibility. Hope it’s not too late but is a course reversal likely? It appears these companies’ so-smart leaders really don’t care. They send lawyers and excuses to Congress. No CEO leadership moments, just windy explanations and vague plans as factual truth and American democracy become the real casualties.
11
Corporations need to be tightly regulated and controlled. Checks and balances are vital to prevent further corruption and infection of the government by greedy companies.
4
Both Zuckerberg and Sandberg belong in jail. They were complicit in allowing Russia to meddle in our elections. They could have stopped it but didn't because all they cared about was their bottom line. They did not care that they were responsible for destroying our democracy.
12
Facebook is culpable on any number of the issues you wish to review. This is clear. And I agree with the author that they have zero incentive to negatively effect the sacred cow which is the data they collect. Why should they? It's the only way they make money.
They do not make anything. They do not produce any sort of product of merit in an economic sense. In truth they are the "fluff" on the top of our economic system. They're a frivolity, and completely unnecessary. Is it any wonder that they strive so hard to maintain the appearance of relevance?
But that said let me also say this. It's average America that so blithely puts all that data, all of their personal information, out there on the various social media platforms. No one forces them to do this. They put it out there as if those platforms were family albums controlled only by them. And then they complain when their data is used for profit-seeking ends? They complain when malicious others use this data (against them)?
This is foolishness. One should never presume any social media platform, or any corporation for that matter (think Equifax), has your best interests at heart. They don't. For Facebook, et.al., the only thing that matters is profit, even to the point of pushing legal boundaries.
You may find what they offer useful; but never delude yourself over how you are being used to further the self-interested ends of other, potentially malicious, actors.
John~
American Net'Zen
8
None of us are capable of self-regulation and that includes:
Facebook, Twitter, Social Media, et al
Corporations
Charter Schools
Churches
Banks
all of Us
5
Instead of trying to understand the logic of capitalism at work with Facebook, Google, we should be attempting to protect our family members from profiling. Since Facebook is interested in making money off of you the one thing we can do is get off of Facebook. Stop making it easy for them and reclaim your privacy what is left of it again. This company sold us to the Russians for money for goodness sake.
7
Yes, it is time to regulate Facebook and probably other social media companies. When first started, these companies were totally new to consumers. Their approach to data was not fully understood at the time. A GUI interface has two sides, what is called the Front end and the back end, the one the user sees and the one the developer/company sees. These companies were well aware of the data they were collecting and how it might be abused. They took a hands-off global citizen approach of Not my problem. The global citizen is a relatively new invention. This is a person or company who views itself, not as a citizen of a particular country, but as a citizen of the world. In their view, this citizen has no responsibility to their host country. Civic duty is old hat and can be ignored. Trump is a perfect example. Use the market and infrastructure of any country to your own nefarious ends and take no responsibility for lying, cheating or any other bad behavior. For all his phony patriotic blather, he is not a good US citizen.
3
This is why Stanton adheres to a policy of storing his old love letters and other secret documents in a Macanudo cigar box underneath his bed. ("Incorporating tobacco from the rich farmlands of the San Andres Tuxtla Valley of Mexico and bound in premium Connecticut Shade wrappers, you'll taste the quality craftsmanship in all Macanudo cigars. With its mild flavors and short finish, it provides a smooth smoke that is neither harsh nor overpowering.")
4
Yes, but unless it's outside on a crisp and still day in late fall, it still stinks.
When Mark Zuckerberg declared over the summer that "Facebook is the new religion" I knew it was bad, bad, bad for the future of society. I do not use Facebook and never will and my life seems complete.
It is clear the company's main selling point is all the data they collect and can then sell to advertisers. User's beware.
8
'... Zuckerberg declared over the summer that "Facebook is the new religion" ...'
I can find no evidence the Z. said anything like that. Please cite a reliable source for that quote.
Get off Facebook. I was on one day years ago. In one day I realized this was evil. I made a mistake by posting a personal letter to a friend, thinking it was just between that friend and myself. He immediately wrote and told me I had posted a very personal comment on the 'wall'. That was it for me.
Facebook does nothing but use us. Don't let them.
4
A lot of this has to do with greed. Sure people can order online but a community needs businesses where locals can interact with each other and be social.
This excerpt is from last year:
"The Associated Supermarket at 255 W. 14th St. between Seventh Avenue and Eighth Avenue closed after business on Sunday, per the notice on the door.
Landlord Pan Am Equities reportedly served the 27-year-old store with an exorbitant rent increase. (According to Gothamist, the rent is going from $32,000/month to $200,000/month.)"
http://evgrieve.com/2016/05/facing-168k-rent-increase-associated.html
3
Americans used to be more connected because they consumed the same media and saw the world thru the same lens. There used to be very little micro targeting to specific groups.
Three television networks, a few radio pop radio stations that played a variety of styles of popular music and the same advertisements for everybody..
Facebook is in effect segregating America into tribes. These targeting algorithms are in effect segregating society into like minded groups by filtering out information that they might like or need to see .
How does an algorithm have any idea what kind of music of entertainment or consumer products a person likes?
Just because a person purchases a country music CD why do they have be told they might also like all this other country music. Maybe that person hates country but bought the CD for their co-worker? Maybe a hip-hop fan might like some rock music but he will never know about it if Facebook thinks that all he likes is hip-hop. Just because you clicked on a car advertisement why should you have top be subjected to a couple of weeks worth of unwanted car ads popping up? Maybe you just clicked on the ad by accident and are not looking to purchase a car right now.
And of course everybody is aware of how this so called targeting has ruined politics in this country. People are living in alternative worlds politically.
.
9
I was once sorry that I sold the shares of Facebook when they dipped below the $35 I paid at the IPO (price currently at $179). Now I feel poorer but wiser.
Before the IPO, I was once a member of Facebook, but I quit after finding myself spending too much time playing Scrabble with complete strangers in the middle of sleepless nights. I still have sleepless nights, but now I feel prescient.
Meanwhile Mark Zuckerberg does his pre-election meet the people stunt, and my newfound prescience and wisdom makes me shudder.
5
A stunning idea: Don't use Facebook.
Start regulating yourself—not just Facebook. It actually feels pretty good out in the real world.
4
Social media narcissism enables the consumer to be at risk, dangerous to everyone.
2
A few months ago, Facebook lied to me about "friends" trying to contact me, using Facebook, but really trying to get you to switch over to FB Messenger - their email server. Yeah, what a shock to find my email switched over after downloading their app, and then finding out that my friends didn't initiate contact (actually my wife's friends). I'm sure FB mined my data before I deleted their app (and apologized to my wife's friends). You can't tell me that FB doesn't have a team that sends out spam deliberately, pretending friends have important messages.
To that end, I propose that, before apps are downloaded, the user must check off, item by item, a list of changes or data that will be mined to your phone or computer that you will allow (in plain English). No more lengthy documents that have just one approval at the end - but approval for every change. And fines for lying about false contacts. If Wells Fargo can be fined for setting up false accounts, then FB, etc.. should be fined too.
4
Self regulation is NO REGULATION.
8
Facebook does NOT know what I look like, my location, who my friends are, or my interests, whether I'm in a relationship or not, and what other pages I look at on the web. Yes I have a page, but it's not in my name, nor do I use it as a hub of my life. My page exists so that I can quickly log into sites I wish to read. If so many sites did not force the issue by mandating I have a Facebook account to participate, I would not have it at all. And that is one factor that ought to be regulated: You should have freedom of access across the internet without Facebook or any other product, as a logon intermediary. Logins should be universally open.
Conversely, the idea that one must regulate Facebook because it is a mandatory part of living is nonsense, as is the concurrent idea that Facebook sways elections. The former point is no more true than you must eat fried food, and later is no more true than that some people are credulous and easily swayed by junk information. You'll never stop either idea with regulation.
Notice nothing in this article suggests people not use Facebook, and alternately one might ask, where are it's competitors offering data privacy? What is needed, if a social media hub is deemed necessary at all, is competition. To create competition Facebook must be forced to be fully compatible with competing sites. Don't let Facebook do what Microsoft Windows has done to the world, kill progress by eliminating competition via zero compatibility.
41
Fair points. Unfortunately, and I mean that with sadness, people aren't going to leave Facebook. Why would a person leave a site where they can see everyone and everything, and go to a site with...just themselves?
And that's before we get to self-delusions. "Oh, they don't care about my data." "Oh, everyone does it." "Oh, so what if I get a few more ads." "Oh, all my Facebook friends tell me it's okay."
I wish competition were the answer. That'd be easier than regulation. But it seems regulation is all we can hope for...and in this so-called political climate, we have scant hope of that. How about some political-climate change, everyone?
2
I would pay to join a social media platform that keeps my data private in return for my subscription.
In fact, Facebook may know what you look like: they cajole others who may have included you in a picture they took to tag your identity. A process over which you have no control, and no real means to even establish has taken place.
3
It is time to take a pause from social media and reflect on what we know about all social media -- no privacy, incivility, proliferation of falsehoods, etc. We can easily share our pics with those we know and trust through private email. Schools, teams and others need to get the kids off of facebook. we are raising a generation (or two) who have no idea what privacy is; no understanding of civil discourse.
Facebook is no longer useful or entertaining or essential.
3
Facebook's business model is simple: algorithms replace judgement, allowing the company to hire as few humans as possible. Zuckerberg periodically announces that the next superior algorithm will fix things, but why would he ever change a business model which enabled him to buy and fence in a good chunk of Kauai?
4
And we give Facebook two huge tax loopholes: lower tax rates on capital gains, and deferring foreign-source earnings until repatriated.
3
If Americans were better educated, they would not be so easy to manipulate. They would be able to read with some independence of mind. They would question sources, see bias, wonder about the interests and agendas behind the stories they read.
Better educated Americans might also learn to reflect on the meaning of life and be encouraged to develop a set of internal standards that might provide wise direction as they contemplate the many difficult questions posed by a money-driven culture.
But our educational system isn't nurturing independent minded, reflective, responsible, or ethical people.
What about the best schools? Schools that educated high-powered CEO's of companies like Facebook? Here, we seem to have an educational system that is mostly dedicated to creating the kind of people who can and will thrive-- no matter the personal or global costs-- in a fiercely competitive society and world. There seems to be less emphasis on philosophical questioning. I say this, in part, because funding for the humanities has seen precipitous drops over the past two decades. Would-be professors of philosophy and English are often working two or three jobs, paid little over minimum wage, working as adjuncts. Those dedicated to the kind of coursework that might save us are really struggling...
In other words, Facebook just amplifies the effects of a poorly educated population.
7
If there was ever a case for privacy protection, regulation and oversight this is it and in the Orwellian era of Trump, this is yet another struggle worth fighting for...
1
Turning this comments section into a debate on the pros and cons of government regulation misses the point that FB users are willingly giving Evil Corp. data about themselves they would never hand over to strangers on the subway. Can we start educating ourselves and our children that giving a corporate behemoth the keys to unlock our privacy is no different than handing out our house keys and address in Times Square. What Facebook is stealing from us collectively is worth a lot more than our TV sets. It’s our freedom, our democracy and the hope of a truly engaged civil society that is at stake.
3
Facebook ought to be required to state, clearly and concisely, in bold print, at the top of the news feed, every day, that " We sell all your information to our advertisers." Ditto for any app that wants you to use your Facebook (or Google) log in. If that information is clearly presented, on an ongoing basis, then people really understand what they're signing on and continuing on, for. Burying that crucial piece of information in legalese deep in a contract no one reads is not acceptable.
6
Facebook, and most of the social media platforms (not sure what LinkedIn is for, if you're not in sales) are there to take take take, and never to give you anything more than prompts for you to give more personal information. It's sad that it's come to this, people are willing to share so much information to this commercial enterprise, tricked into doing so without any sort of compensation, to validate ones existence.
4
Seems if we cared about our personal information we wouldn't hand it out freely. Also, doesn't thirteen years old seem young to expect a person to understand what happens on the web. Maybe parents need to be better caring parents.
2
No for-profit enterprise of any kind should ever be trusted to regulate itself. Profit isn't evil, nor benevolent. It exists in a moral netherworld in which its self perpetuation is the only imperative. The public good does not enter into the equation...unless the public imposes it.
6
LIke 90% of Corp America today, Facebook is only interested in two things and two things only, profit & greed, until, like the author says, bad press gets in the way. Then, it's damage control mode and lip service spin until it goes away. Believing these companies will police themselves is like believing trickle down economics works.
4
This is a revealing piece, and as a reporting of news, the tip of the iceberg by the Times. Just like a chart showing the relationship of various foods/activities to pathologies, we should have a chart showing the uses of personal data across platforms of internet social media/search companies along with a comparison of their privacy policies for the use of this data. We also need to know how much they make per visit to their websites and their billing practices to advertisers. As an example one gaming company makes on average 12 cents per visit, generally selling user add-ons. With facebook and social media companies, users should have an option by law to opt out of all personal data collection for sale to advertisers, and any targeting of minors should be prohibited and especially by search engines; google is routinely used in schoolwork. This latter would not affect their ads posted related to individual searches.
For facebook, the site is now cluttered with advertising. A subscription service of say $1/ month would probably be appreciated to get rid of all unsolicited ads. Coupled with a 50/50 sharing to non-profits, it would probably be preferred. And any chat or email service that routinely collects personal data content should have a flashing red warning notice on every visit.
Where is the prosecution for violations of the Logan Act? And telephone companies or social media companies should not own news content companies. Fox news is also foreign owned.
6
This is Alan Greenspan, GWB's Chairman of the FED Reserve....
On SELF-REGULATION OF THE BANKS...
[on how the 2008 financial debacle changed his perspective] Most basic economics up to that point was based on the presumption that human beings are rational in that they look after their long-term self-interest. My shock was that what we now call animal spirits has a certain consistency about it. In other words, you can demonstrate that fear is a far more potent emotion than euphoria or greed. That changed the whole way I look at the world.
2
while i agree with the author's assessment of FB? i wonder if 126M figure is useful.. when i post something on my business page it tells me i have "reached" a lot more people than i even have as followers. certainly the "reached" figure is way more than the number that like or comment on my post.
beyond that? Zuckerberg is 33-34 years old and has never grown up. you can imagine that the rest of the crew is not much different than the boss.
1
In today's Internet, with thousands of hackers from foreign governments and organized crime as well as freelancers using diabolically clever methods to access sensitive personal data, it is hard enough for companies that have access to such data to prevent its theft when they are really trying. When they don't try very hard it is impossible. Companies like Facebook have responsibility to the public to rigorously protect their data. Since they haven't done it, government should step in.
1
It didn't help the world much, but from the beginning, I resisted pressure to join Facebook. Saw it as way too invasive. Never regretted it.
2
FB is a common carrier, in that it controls the network used to access your friends and family in the digital age.
FB is a media company serving you audio and video programming from many sources, some whose identities are completely opaque to the viewer (Russia, e.g.). Now FB is even beginning to produce programming. It is a vertically integrated entity, capable of controlling large portions of the information consumed by millions each day.
The real problem is systemic. The government, charged by the Constitution to represent the people, represents only large corporations and wealthy donors. This should not come as news to anyone.
The solution is enforced regulation. All data collection, and it's distribution, must be opt-in. The right to be forgotten must be in place, and enforced, as well. It's long past time to protect our citizens. It's actually too late for most of us, who are already compromised. But no solution can be enacted while our government is unwilling to do it's job.
103
No private sector corporation will ever regulate itself. It simply isn't in the DNA. That is what a responsible public sector is for. With the enthusiastic collusion of our President, however, well-heeled corporate interests constantly strive to weaken effective public stewardship of the public interest. That IS in the DNA.
With all of its imperfect messiness, a robust democracy needs the public oversight of private interests that tend on their own to run rampant. What's good for General Motors is good for the country only when we the people can blunt the excesses that, left unregulated, would destroy us.
8
That a very large percentage of Americans get their news mainly from facebook speaks volumes about their collective naiveté and deliberately cultivated inability to discern truth from fiction. The result is sitting in the oval office.
14
I don’t use Social Media.
You have no idea as to the ethics, integrity, or qualifications, of the writer you’re reading.
You could be reading, and absorbing, the writings of The Village Idiot, or writings designed to please someone named “Vladimir”.
Someone who has never met you, and knows nothing about you, is free to tell the Zillions of readers you’re the worst person ever.
Why use Social Media?
So why do numerous news sites, such as McClatchy and the Tampa Bay Times, require readers to use a Facebook account to post comments? Those who value their privacy and do not have Facebook accounts cannot comment on articles.
And the media criticizes Facebook for selling our personal information? Really?
3
If you don't like Facebook ... don't use Facebook. Any power they have is what you give them.
These are not public airways. There are not finite domains. Not everything that you dislike needs to be regulated.
2
Beyond, legislating the protection of private data, I see ZERO reason for government to legislate content.
2
I guess saving our democracy doesn't count?
My family and friends called me paranoid and old-fashioned when Facebook became more popular outside the college/high school crowd. I cautioned everyone I knew to have a Facebook account about the dangers of such personal information being "out there." God only knew what it would be used for!
But, eventually I gave in and created an account. Primarily so that I could create an account for the non-profit I worked for. I've used it sporadically to keep in touch with loved ones who live far away.
But, since the revelations about how social media contributed to electing 45, I use it even less. I post some articles to our local Indivisible page. There is no doubt in my mind after reading this article that Facebook, Twitter & all the rest of them need to be regulated by the government. The selling of our personal data so that Facebook customers can target their audience is down right obscene! Conventional advertising worked. Companies made money. The root of social media's business model is greed. We have paid a very high price for the use of social media. Putin and social media started the fire that will burn down our democracy.
1
The only way to prevent Facebook from accessing your personal data is to not even open a Facebook account. The infringement on our privacy by social media, search engines, cell phone companies, governments, etc. is absolutely disturbing. Combine that with big data and artificial intelligence (this is not just robots, by the way), and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how much damage to human society and families this can inflict. Especially when you consider the ethics--or lack thereof--of the people running the game.
Consider that Facebook began because Mark Zuckerberg was bitter over a breakup and started the application as a way to compare females at Harvard. In light of the outing of many sexual harassment scandals, this would be considered unacceptable. Yet here is this guy with limited moral principle collecting everyone's data because the masses are too vein to care.
The only way to stop FB is for everyone to stop using it. Anyone who I care to be in touch with, I am in touch with. I had some good friends in the past but we haven't talked in years and, frankly, I would not have time to re-ignite those friendships now. So, what is the attraction to FB? I assume it is a way for disconnected people to feel more connected, but the result is that they are further disconnected from those they should most care about--family and close friends!
2
Facebook argues that it is not a content company but a technology company. If that is so, should it not be barred from accessing or using the content it carries? When they are cut a huge slack every time this issue emerges with no question on the use of the content they carry, and the consequence is a selfish data monger.
A few suggestions if you are a Facebook user, do not share any information about yourself and do not participate in any of the "90 % of the people fail this" kind of "games" which grant them access to your information. Better yet, limit your interaction on Facebook and use an adblocker in your browser.
Many of my most disheartening moments are evoked by hearing or reading about folks who believe that corporations valued in the billions are capable of self-regulation.
In the pantheon of deadly sins, gluttony could've easily been the handmaiden of greed. A "greeding-disorder" is much like an eating disorder: compulsion lacking internal control, the operant principle being simply "more." Facebook is no exception.
1
I haven’t announced anywhere I’m having my first baby, yet I’m already being shown baby photographer ads on Facebook.
How do they know? Maybe because my wife is looking up baby related content on her computer/ phone using the same ip?
Otherwise, I’d be interested in somebody in government telling me how they knew and how that is not an invasion of my privacy.
3
Personally, I don't get it. I have never clicked on a Facebook ad, look at it maybe twice a week and would never use it as a source of news. All those advertising dollars are totally wasted on me.
1
This was an important editorial for the NYT to publish. The author is correct - Facebook and it's competitors have no incentive to behave ethically. German privacy law is among the world's most effective. Readers would be well advised to advocate for the adoption of a similar law in the United States and in what other countries they live in.
4
The conclusion should be no surprise to anyone when one considers that the founder stole the idea from fellow students and did not share it equitably with them or other early colleagues. That is all one needs to know about the character of this individual. The man is very cynical and the cynicism and pure pragmatism without any ethical compass obviously drive everything that the company does.
2
Like Trump, Facebook isn't the problem but a symptom of the problem, or more accurately problems. What are those problems? There are many, but two of the biggest offenders are the closing of the American mind to opposing points of view, and a growing obsession with stressing the "STEM" subjects in education, and gradually eliminating humanities subjects in our schools and universities. An article in The Guardian the other day carried the headline "How a half-educated tech elite delivered us into chaos" and though not a long piece it actually spoke volumes to anyone who read it. We as a nation complain about our politicians but voter turnout is pathetic, probably as a result of non existent Civics education. Rampant xenophobia is partially attributable to an absurd pride in American monolingualism, even though so many American born citizens are so severely challenged by the English language themselves. And, finally there is American greed which masquerades as freedom and independence but is nothing more than ignorance resulting from a lack of education and exposure to the spirituality and philosophy which are found only in a humanities education not in home schooling by ill prepared parents and other would be educators.
3
Excellent article. Thank you for much need insights.
1
It's as if we were so seduced by the technology that we were willing to turn all our rights over to these companies without question. Letting a private company (or a government--at this point there's hardly any difference) record our every move and sell the information on the open market is insane.
2
Having our current government regulate Facebook doesn’t sound very assuring. It would turn a blind eye to Russia’s conditioning the presidential re-election campaign and authorize the NSA to merge Facebook’s wealth of data on private citizens into its already existing mega trove.
As a person that does not know about Facebook nor use such platforms I feel a certain distance from the problem, this probably is naive because I do use the internet to read newspapers, emails, and sometimes to buy stuff, so some one some where is gathering my data. But the problem is capitalism. The new set of revered entrepreneurs are just as bad as those industrialists that worked men and children 80 hours a week for pennies while amassing their billions of dollars. But that IS capitalism.
1
Reasonable suggestions from the author of this article. This seems like a reasonable, on the record source who previously worked for Facebook.
Good article.
Any effort to have Facebook self-police will fail. Self-policing entails a rise in costs to hire programmers/human eyes and a decline in income due to Fake News, bots, socks etc. These elements attack Facebook's basic business plan and will not be seriously implemented. Only major departures of users will make a difference.
I trust Federal regulators even less.
Do you trust your fellow citizens, who elect the government, who control the Federal regulators?
1
There are a number of articles out there whose titles are similar and more or less sum up the monetizing principle of the digital industry: "You are not the customer, you are the product."
In a world where corporations are individuals (my friend) money equals speech and information is power we might as well call Facebook by its real name - God.
We cannot trust ANY corporation to regulate itself.
Not banks (Wells Fargo), not drug companies (price increases and not ready for prime time drugs), not oil companies (who has tax payers clean up their messes), not airlines (looking at you, United).
Small government and low regulations means giving control to these guys without any checks. So they can rip off the population again and again, just like
Conservatives and Republicans want. Just like they have been since Reagan.
2
I've given up on Facebook, not because I don't trust it to regulate itself or indeed trust it's founder at all, but because as Bill Maher so succinctly put it recently, 'Facebook is where thinking comes to die.'
I now phone my grandkids - and speak/debate with them. People should try it.
I would try to argue that people should stop using FB and stop buying online, but resistance is futile. We will have no choice before too much longer.
Instead of waiting for regulators, take matters into your own hands. Step 1: delete your Facebook account. Many people would be surprised by how freeing that is and will never look back.
For those that really miss Facebook (or are too addicted to quit), move on to Step 2: Create a new Facebook. Set it up as a nonprofit or a mutual company. Without shareholders, the focus would solely be on the best interest of the users. To the extent data is sold for massive profits, all of it would at least go back to the users.
1
FB isn’t the only perp in this arena. Ever search Amazon, Wayfair, or Houzz (just to name a few)? Ads for the object of those searches will continuously pop up and follow you on dozens of websites, like the NY Times, for the next few weeks or until you search for something else. Then, the cycle repeats. It’s the new world of our ‘on-line’ lifestyle. No wonder traditional brick-and-mortar retailers are failing. Tough to compete with that. One almost needs to go off-grid to avoid it these days.
Facebook is a product consumers don’t need and do not pay for. It is not a public utility. It is not providing essential sevices for sustaining life (water, food, heat). Membership is 100% voluntary. We have eroded responsibility to such a ridiculous point where we give away information about ourselves and then cry to the government when we don’t like how it is used.
The marketplace has spoken. People have decided that the ability to broadcast their pictures, their experiences, and their accomplishments (however dubious) is more valuable to them than the “price” of advertisers using that information to sell them things. If there is actual damage to this price, consumers don’t see it even when the data collection is explained.
Complaining about privacy on Facebook is like complaining about the humidity in a sauna. And there is no excuse as to consumers being misinformed, because news of these practices travels fast. Thanks to Facebook.
I’m sorry your experience made you feel icky. And I’m sure your heart is in the right place trying to “protect people from themselves”. But 2 billion people have said “no thank you. I really like it when people Like my selfies”.
“But if they only knew...” you may say. They know. They just don’t care.
120
The "marketplace" is broken. It needs to be fixed. Placing all the blame on individuals, who have no control over the system, is a cop out.
This is not entirely true. Facebook even collects and sells data rom non-users through websites that implement Facebook plugins such as "like" buttons. When confronted by Belgian University researchers with this in 2015, Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president of policy for Europe had this to say: “Facebook does receive standard ‘web impressions’, or website visit information, when people visit sites with our plugins or other integrations. The authors misleadingly call this ‘tracking’,” said Allan. “Unlike many companies, we explain how we will use this information and the controls we honour and offer.”
1
What we need to do with Facebook is to figure out a way to prevent it from re-publishing any "news" items. Period.
The First Amendment clearly prevents the government from stopping Facebook from publishing anything they want (short of hard-core porn or libelous material). But all "legitimate" journalistic enterprises (TV networks, newspapers, magazines, etc.) could band together to assert their copyright protections by threatening to sue Facebook for any of their original reporting from being re-posted on Facebook.
If all the legitimate media were to effectively boycott Facebook - the word would quickly spread that the only "news" on Facebook was by definition from illegitimate sources. Soon even credulous and gullible Facebook users (apparently the majority of them) would come to realize that anything remotely resembling "news" on Facebook would be "fake news".
Now some would continue to wallow in the sewer of fake news - which would be the only "news" left on Facebook. They are beyond redemption.
But hopefully the vast majority of Facebook users would learn to "go to the source" for their news - rather than relying on the Facebook algorithms designed to pander to their pre-existing misconceptions and fears for their news.
If global journalism wishes to maintain its integrity, it must band together and boycott Facebook (and similar, unprincipled "social media" outlets). Otherwise, the journalistic equivalent of Gresham's Law ("bad money drives out good") will prevail.
24
Few people go to Facebook for news. Facebook doesn't republish articles from news media outlets. Facebook users often post links to news media website, but this increases the number of people who go to the news medial websites.
What is more, (I having had ID theft in 2009 & resultant mail fraud, there is NO WAY to get rid of OLD profiles or data once having used Facebook..) consequently in trying to track down old friends & colleagues with whom the above events had disrupted communication for years...when I try to use FB I look like a multiple personality...tries to put me in chat rooms with myself.
Linked In & Google similar but Google is NOT so unethical. Linked in is hopeless.
'But all "legitimate" journalistic enterprises (TV networks, newspapers, magazines, etc.) could band together to assert their copyright protections by threatening to sue Facebook for any of their original reporting from being re-posted on Facebook.'
You are making a false assumption. Media outlets WANT their content on Facebook.
Hey, Mark Zuckerberg: My Democracy Isn’t Your Laboratory
By STEVAN DOJCINOVIC
NOV. 15, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/opinion/serbia-facebook-explore-feed....
I toyed with going on Facebook because of local causes that depend on it as a means of communication. In talking to others I found people were leaving Facebook in numbers because it fostered too much local animosity. The real deciding factor was Facebook members who were acting out with violence in the real world. These acts were mostly vandalism but clearly designed to threaten people they disagreed with and found via Facebook. You will not be surprised to find the actors were Trump supporters and that such actions were discouraging people from running for local office.
10
I know that abuse of data is a big concern. The greater concern is Russia. Putin knows that Facebook's business model makes America vulnerable.
With little effort he has managed to defeat America using cyber-warfare and install his president to the oval office. While Zuckerberg has a right to enjoy success, Russian access to American viewers should not be part of its business model. China is able to do it. Why can't America?
Facebook does not have the right to enjoy the success that comes from a portion of its business model that threatens American sovereignty.
8
"You're not on Facebook?' everyone asks me. It was obvious to me from the start that putting so much of yourself out there was a arrangement ripe for abuse, No, I'm not on Facebook and never will be. Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid, but I sensed the dangers the author describes here long ago. Didn't any of the rest of you? So many trusting souls.
53
Agree. Start by requiring vetting of anyone creating a profile or posting. As an incentive allow FB to keep all this data. No one should be able to bully or lie while maintaining anonymity, and all foreign profiles and posts must be "extremely" vetted (fake forty five should like that). Zuckerberg cannot be trusted at all!
3
Several people suggesting the way around this is to not join Facebook or other social media. Something tells me it's not as simple as that anymore, Big Brother.
9
facebook makes its money from your personal info, just like google does. People willing give up the natural resource on which they're businesses are built. Why would either of them willingly agree to give that up?
Please keep in mind when using online tools, if it's free, you're the product.
9
What is obvious is that the overwhelming majority of people, who use the internet in any way, have no idea whatsoever of either its physical structure or how data-communication actually works.
Add to that the manner in which services are made available if and only if you allow access to a welter of unrelated dat, such as you contacts, your photos, your location, etc. and it becomes clear -or it should anyway- that the probability of information that is deeply personal being thrown into the public sphere is extremely high. And of course, by actually clicking 'yes' to get through all the questions, you, as a user, formally do give permission for all of this.
Also, it should be made much more clear to all that nothing is ever reliably deleted. Any message or photo that ever existed on anything other than the device on which it was created, in all likelihood still exists somewhere, especially if it has been sent of put into cloud storage.
'Cloud storage' is very misleading, by the way. Contrary to what many apparently believe, these clouds are very physical. They are server farms, somewhere in the world (like Belarus or the island nation of Nauru), and not nearly as well protected as one might think. And the information gets from A to B mostly via fiber-glass land-lines. Only the first and finals trips are wireless.
Again, we're fooled by people who are in it for the money. 1 Timothy 6:10 is proved right yet again.
7
Usually in online newspapers you see the label "advertisement", or "from our sponsor" near the paid-for articles. (Only usually, not always.) Facebook should list the confirmed source of payment (person or company) along with each paid for item. Conversely, isn't not doing that just plain old lying?
7
This is Deep Throat of the Digital Age. The key to understanding the import of this insider account is to understand what has generated the huge profits and billionaires of late. The ability to absorb attention on a screen is the key to success of media and social media giants. FB is the largest absorber of attention in the world. As Zuck's billions accumulate, our democracy is at risk: Already we have had a thrown election thx to FB. The basic formula is, FB charges for access to our attention. Who buys access? Anyone. Any FB user, company, cause, campaign, foreign tourism office, or foreign spy. If Russians could do it, how can we know there is not now a more clever operation by N Koreans, Al Quadea or Iranian Revolutionary Guard going on? Can FB guarantee we are not now being manipulated by shadowy campaign? And it not just messaging-- Russians even paid some of us to do divisive things, to protest, teach militant branded self-defense. Yes, democracy is being sold on the cheap: $20 a year. (That is, I believe, the annual value of a user to FB.) Zuck is selling us out because that's the logic of monopoly capitalism; companies whose products have bad effects on health or civics can still be very profitable. But why are WE selling out democracy for so little? Let's pitch in, create free, open-source, social network, interface with other public or private networks. thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/341016-facebooks-succe...
6
I will never join Facebook or shop in a Wal Mart. Can we preserve some threshold of dignity?
10
Bravo! Walmart is a company that really deserves to be boycotted..they are the ultimate anti-All-American store. We have choices, avoid Walmart at all costs. They are a dangerous company that hurts communities and destroys small businesses. Facebook is not a necessity in life. Try actually communicating w/ your real friends.
Facebook? Self-regulate? With Mark "They trust me" Zuckerberg at the helm and faux-empowerment star Sheryl "Lean In" Sandberg under him?
That's the height of crazy talk. It was so, long before this heroic whistleblower told this story, and will be until Facebook changes, or gets changed, into something entirely different from the blatant malvertiser, Real Name harasser, and hoarder and seller of personal info that Zuck aspires it to be.
Until then there's a far better way to "regulate" them: blockers and firewalls.
9
Greed trumps national interests. Facebook, like many many other corporations especially in tech, is obviously no exception. Every US citizen should have digital privacy rights and companies like Facebook forced to not violate them. Takes a forward thinking elected leaders of which we have a paucity.
6
I hope that those of us who chose to stay clear of Facebook will be seen as the wise ones now, rather than the antisocial luddites our friends and family insist on calling us.
14
It isn't absolute wealth. If people just logged off for a month, Erasebook would be worth Zilch. They would nothing to sell since as I gather there is NO charge be on it. In fact, it is what people should do--but they won't because they are without spine. In the future when they are controlled by the few, they will regret their decisions
3
I never fell for Facebook. A lot of business associates and a few friends considered me a Neanderthal for bucking that trend (Well, I am 67 so...). The real friends (as opposed to Facebook friends) I have know how to reach me and I know how to reach them (telephone, e-mail). Even though they are my friends, I don't care to know about every moment in their lives, just the important ones. Why would anyone want to put their personal lives, photos and data up on a virtual billboard for the whole world to see and misuse? Call me a neanderthal but I just never saw a need for Facebook and really would prefer it just die a quiet death
9
Nothing could be more desperate, more humiliating than the most august body of American government, the US Senate, sifting through the dregs of social media - social media of all things - trying to find "evidence" of "Russian-related" (whatever that means) meddling in US elections and destabilizing of US society which would otherwise be problem-free without racism, deep political divisions, electoral corruption and gross economic disparity. No wonder Congress is held to such low esteem, to contempt even, in the opinion of American citizens according to Gallup http://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
As for "regulation," it was not the gossip of social media that universally supported the deceit of Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq and exhorted the invasion and destruction of that country which resulted in the death, wounding and displacement of millions of innocent people and set the region on a fire that still burns out of control. It was not social media that hyped the "fighting super-hero" exploits of Jessica Lynch who actually turned out to be a vulnerable recipient of Iraqi military protection and assistance. It was not social media that spread the "warning" of Russian threats to the US electricity network through a forgotten and unrelated notebook computer.
A writer of the ancient world said "Whoever the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. " And all this is madness pure and simple.
2
Calling for regulation is not the answer. The answer is for the users of Facebook to demand more accountability. If users don't mind the privacy issues or that most of the news they read on the site has been planted there by trolls, then that should indicate that they are ok with it the way it is. Personally, I don't use Facebook. When I ask friends if they're concerned about their privacy, they shrug. If users cared, there'd be a drop in numbers, but instead the numbers keep climbing. If the users don't take an interest, then let the company alone to collect and sell data however they want.
4
The flaw in your logic is that people aren't making an infiormed choice.
I have never had a Facebook account, which makes me something of an outlier in this post-fact, post-privacy age. I have always been protective of my personal data and don't feel the need to bore my "friends" with the minutiae of my daily existence or every tidbit of news and pop culture that catches my eye. There are other, more personal and meaningful ways of communicating.
Plus, I know a Faustian bargain when I see one. I wouldn't be lured into a stranger's van in exchange for candy, so why would I voluntarily relinquish my privacy just to gain access to a "free" social media network. My parents taught me to be appropriately cautious and skeptical, highlighting that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
Facebook does not offer access to its service out of the goodness of its corporate heart. It does so to turn a profit, to reward its founders and investors. That's what businesses do, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. But when that business becomes something of a monopoly and is less than transparent about its practices and the risks posed by consuming its product, then there is reason to hold it to account and impose regulations to rein it in and protect the public. Even while that public continues to foolishly take the proffered candy and get into the van.
Before Facebook and others of its ilk, what was mine was principally mine. Now, what is mine is mined.
That's something we should all mind.
53
Zuckerberg and Sandburg are money-grubbing sociopaths. What took the NYT so long to notice?
18
As one who never had a Facebook account, or any account on any type of social media platform, I can honestly say that this revelation doesn't surprise me, but it does cause me great concern.
Not only because Facebook has become the defacto go-to place for millions in America and other across the planet for news -- but because unlike any accredited news organization, it has never once accepted the responsibility for what it is reporting, placing the profit margin above all else.
As a result, it now finds itself in the dilemma it's in -- and so does the rest of the country.
At a time when basic media regulation laws are being tossed to the wind, allowing corporations to take over the social and political landscape by owning multiple broadcast outlets, this should serve as a cautionary tale to those who have not yet to succumbed to the tabloid and Breitbart-effect.
The future and fate of this country depends on it.
15
I’ve been an avid Facebook user from the get-go but I don’t believe I’ve ever bought anything I saw advertised on that platform and I can’t recall the last time I clicked on an ad. If a post is not from a Friend, I don’t notice it. It’s likely my experience is not typical but I do wonder whether advertisers are getting value for the money they shovel into Facebook.
7
Same here. I don't react to the ads. Also, I'm a human being and not a robot, so I change my mind from time to time. Just because I liked something yesterday does not mean that I will still like it tomorrow.
1
The point is not that you look, click or buy: it’s that what you share about your life is a goldmine for market research. That random shot of your kid at breakfast tells a marketer what your likely annual income is due to the appliances in the background, if you employ a housekeeper, what kind of dish soap you use, etc.
And on a subtle level, every time you glance at your page, ads that you think you pay no heed to over time subliminally creep inside your mind.
1
The goal of a company is to make money. The MBA mentality is to more efficiently increase value within the company to make more money. The absolute best we can hope for with respect to how that company goes about its fiduciary responsibilities to the owners and shareholders is amorality - companies are no more moral than the weakest link in its management structure. Laws and regulations are put in place to protect society and the marketplace from those people.
12
SCE writes: "The MBA mentality is to more efficiently increase value within the company to make more money."
True enough. Let me suggest: "The MBA mentality is to make more money without regard for negative consequences to ethics and in some cases laws, the health and economic well being of others, or the informal norms of behavior that make democracy possible."
2
If individuals are concerned about what Facebook is doing with their data or they have second thoughts about all the time they spend on it or misgivings about how they may be influenced by it, the answer is really simple. Close Your Account. I did it, so have millions of others. Technically it isn't all that hard to do, though you may have to Google how to do it. Psychologically, perhaps a bit harder but face it, if you are using a computer to build and maintain friendships then you need to think again about what kind of friendships those are. If you have any kind of issue about quitting and are over the age of 25 see the movie again. At its heart Facebook is a hook up algorithm. It is time this country grew out of it.
34
Sorry, speak for yourself. I find a lot of value in my Facebook friendships. One size does not fit all. There are always people who boast about never using it or quitting - of course we all know that's a possibility that we can think through without prompts.
After 2-1/2 years of wading through displays of epic narcissism, unsubstantiated "news" and photos of dogs and food, I shut it down too. FB is not only uninspiringly boring, it's irritating and passé. People who have actual lives don't need it.
I have seriously been thinking of doing this. Is it really hard to do? Seems as you can just go to your accounts and do it.
I just updated my Mozilla browser and needed new apps. The first three I clicked told me to hand over all my contacts, history, pictures, bank records, etc. or no app (their version sounded like they were doing me a favor). No thanks.
When Facebook was new I filled out an account form on their website before deciding not to. Every day I get an email from FB telling me everyone I know is waiting for me to join. Before I get a birthday card, FB has a cake with the right number of candles to blow out.
Yes, FB should be regulated or broken up like Bell Telephone into discrete pieces so others can compete. We trust banks with our money because they're tightly regulated (or were). Why trust FB with our equally valuable personal data without public oversight?
Marketing algorithms use the data to produce intimately detailed profiles that do Big Brother proud, and enable interests to micro-target friend or foe with a custom fake reality.
FB invades our lives in ways we would never allow government. Information (or intel per CIA) is prerequisite to political control that's hostile to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the Bill of Rights.
And yet people on FB surrender themselves without hesitation, oblivious to FB's digital cavity search extracting all content of their lives to sell at a profit to eager clients like Putin's secret agents, who paid in Rubles.
Facebook is half the problem. We're the other half.
There's no public without privacy.
25
"I just updated my Mozilla browser and needed new apps.
I use Firefox and have never heard of "apps" for it. Are you talking about extensions (also called "add-ons")?
"The first three I clicked told me to hand over all my contacts, history, pictures, bank records, etc. or no app ..."
That's not what is going on. You are being asked to grant permissions. The extension may or may not need those permissions. You should ask yourself and the developer why those permissions are needed.
@MKC
"Apps" and "add-ons" are supplementary programs or applications usually created by third parties that "add functionality" to the browser. To a layperson, they are the same thing.
"Grant permission" in the case of the three apps was a requirement. Understandably for many apps to work -- geo location for example -- you have to give them permission to track you, which may be no big deal except it is one data bit you give up in a cascade of similar "permissions" required by other programs you download.
Recently G-mail -- arguably as bad as FB in aggregating user data, analyzing it and then selling it as consumer intel -- has been sending me prompts asking for "permission" to access my contacts, history, location, etc., to "better serve" me with information (re: ads and promotions) I might find useful.
Of the major tech powers, only Apple claims a policy of strict data privacy (except for their own proprietary use) because they're their own digital ecosystem and don't make their profits by selling ads, unlike FB or Google.
I don't and never have used Facebook. My 17 year old nephew rolls his eyes and says "there's no privacy anymore and it doesn't matter unless you have something to hide." That seems to be a generational view, which is tantamount to saying our rights are fungible, transactional and trivial.
Democracy is the tension between individual and collective. And privacy is the border between them.
Yuri: '... it is one data bit you give up in a cascade of similar "permissions" required by other programs you download.'
Could you explain what you mean by that? If there really is such a "cascade", it would be a definite cause for concern.
Therre’s a movement emanating from Europe targeting Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon (GAFA) aimed at curbing these tech behemoths’ power to abuse data they collect by reselling it. Europeans have a more nuanced understanding of the potential misuses and their results. We need to learn from this and do much better at controlling who does what with out private information and in some cases prevent its collection. There should be an index of data items that no one should be allowed to ask for, to begin with, and another list of things they can’t do with the data they collect.
20
The EU has MUCH stricter privacy laws. We should be following their lead.
Well, nothing here is surprising. What you are describing is company that is profiting from a set of complementary business practices that maximize profit and shift the costs and risks of its business practices to others. Facebook is just doing what our society has decided that businesses ought to be able to do. Breaking up Facebook is not the solution. Holding Facebook fully accountable for the harm caused by its business practices is the solution.
3
I don't get it. If people are worried about Facebook and their personal privacy, just stop using Facebook. What's wrong with that idea? Yes, there may be a few consequences which need to be accepted. But it is hardly a necessity of life.
6
"... just stop using Facebook."
That's good advice, but you should say why people don't "just stop". My guess is that people like "free" services and that they are willing to give up some personal information for that "free" service. That's called a trade-off.
"But it is hardly a necessity of life."
Commercial radio and TV aren't either, but they offer "free" services at the cost of being subjected to advertising. Public broadcasters offer "free" services, but they harangue people for donations and ask for government funding.
So none of those services are really "free".
I find it amazing that after Feb. 4, 2004 when Facebook started millions of people have chosen to use it, despite what Facebook can do with your information. Their rule of keeping American's public's information even if you decide to quit made me quit shortly after it started in 2004. I asked them to release my information and they refused. I wanted to sue them, but I blew it off. They still have a bit of my info. I am waiting for a class action suit to come about so I can join them and sue this over rated company. These days either people just don't understand privacy or this just don't care or they at stuck on something. If they are the latter, they are in for a big surprise down the road with Facebook having their precious private information.
3
"I wanted to sue them ..."
On what legal grounds?
I think the main way to force (Internet) companies to regulate themselves lays on two pillars: 1) brand reputation and 2) educating users on their data privacy. The problem with these points is they do not currently work with teenagers, or poorly informed adults, for instance.
People's data "market" is now broken because providers (we, the people) do not move by rational market rules. But perhaps it could be fixed appealing to people's information, and greed.
Governments / civil rights groups / other companies should provide users with tools which help you value (money) every piece of your data. That way, you could get an estimation of the price you are "paying" to Facebook or any other company when using their services. Even better, a tool which also helps you monetize your data if you wish.
Another tool (that would be enthusiastically received by administrations) could be applying a symbolic tax - to costumers - on the use of "free" Internet services. That would de-incentivate irrational use of those services.
No objection at this late hour after a motion by a person in the know regarding potential widespread ill effects from the actions of the behemoth which is Facebook?
This observer rises to second the motion on the bases of Lord Acton's observation about power's likelihood of corrupting and the sense that while Facebook's power may not be absolute, apart from possessors of nuclear weapons, it certainly is in the running among known human institutions for closest to absolute thus far.
For as long as users do not own their own personal data, the fundamental (and constitutional) rights to privacy and to property will be at the mercy of this company, which exercises an unchecked power that no dictator in history has ever dreamed of.
Virtually every protected legal right is now being subsumed by contracts whose provisions are necessarily governed or enforced by sources that are completely unaccountable to traditional law and law enforcement.
The concept of rule of law is giving way to the rule of might.
7
I've been pondering it for months. This morning, I finally did it. I've "permanently deleted" my Facebook account. Good riddance to Big Brother FB. We need a FB alternative that is not profit-driven, where we own our data, and whose content selection algorithm is transparent and not manipulative.
7
". . . our democracy is at stake." Big money maker as is the entire social media industry. Capitalism free-for-all. Americans swoon over technology without understanding the trade-offs. Do not see the forest for the trees. Not much can be said at this point. If people took the time to study the populist event in Germany after WWI they would see a familiar script. Manipulation of the masses via skillful use of propaganda. Today's technology accelerates the process exponentially.
3
All modern utilities need to be regulated. What's a utility? It's a unique provider of a universal public service. Telephone companies used to compete, but when they developed local areas of dominance, regulation followed. The same needs to happen with Facebook and Uber and the rest. It seems that Europe is leading the way.
8
Anyone who thinks that Facebook's problem is because of Facebook's youthful leadership or culture is forgetting the long history of corporate greed that ultimately required (or still requires) regulation to keep people simply safe: railroads, drug companies, industrial polluters, car manufacturers, and on and on...
While lawmakers scratch their heads over new technologies, Tech leaves government in the dust. Meanwhile, politicians promise to tear up all the regulations.
It's human nature, and not a judgement, to say that corporations will act in their own self interest, which means that they can't fairly assess the harm that they do. But only when corporations they realize that regulation is actually in their interest ~ in making a fair competitive playing field, in providing usable infrastructure ~ will they be on board.
30
Whenever there is no enforcement of minimum standards of conduct in any human activity, it is invariably taken over by the worst people participating in it, and ruined.
Look what a demented collection of people America's politicians are.
2
“This makes for a dangerous mix: a company that reaches most of the country every day and has the most detailed set of personal data ever assembled, but has no incentive to prevent abuse.”
Add to this new reality todays US government that is happy to let any and every monopoly power run amuck over the public. As the GOP rushes to empty and shutter governments departments that had anything to do with any oversight. To tackle this the public needs the former FCC their grandfathers had, pre-1987 GOP depowering & gutting. Today’s Washington is proud they cancelled the laws that allowed this very global mess to grow and fester.
Add to that an American press that is but a shadow of one that can act as the fourth estate, and broadcast news in the public’s interests on front pages in all 50 states. Today one newspaper reports this dangerous reality in the back pages, one person’s expert opinion. Not long ago investigative reporters in the US would build whole careers exposing dangers to the public a fraction the size of this.
109
No industry has ever regulated itself--look at the Medical industries now - and tech is no different. Self regulation even when done with the best of intents and good will has all ways a large measure of conflict of interest. And the more money involved the greater the conflict.
18
This is Alan Greenspan, GWB's Chairman of the FED Reserve....
On SELF-REGULATION OF THE BANKS...
[on how the 2008 financial debacle changed his perspective] Most basic economics up to that point was based on the presumption that human beings are rational in that they look after their long-term self-interest. My shock was that what we now call animal spirits has a certain consistency about it. In other words, you can demonstrate that fear is a far more potent emotion than ....
Facebook's revenue revenue grew from about 8 billion in 2013 to 28 billion US dollars in 2016. Profits also surged. Even as its News Feed reaches maximum capacity, other avenues of growth may appear: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/26/facebook-earnings-q2-2017/ .
Any time that much money is involved, the idea of self-policing will fall short. A related problem is its out-sized influence on digital news reporting outlets worldwide.
19
Blaming the presidential election result on Russian meddling via Facebook or other media/internet outlets is becoming tiresome. Other governments will always attempt to sway voters in our country, much as we do in other countries. Just keep the voting process itself secure. The Democratic candidate was as a dud...choose a better candidate and the meddling won't matter.
4
But does an American company have to aid the bad actors who try to undermine our democracy? Should they profit from it?
2
Yeah, good luck with keeping the voting process secure when you rationalize away any need for even the most basic counter measures. Are you fine with having your electronics awash with malware, as long as you supposedly have secured your data? Probably not, just a guess. Do you leave your house unlocked when you are away, because you have your valuables 'secured?' Should we just allow foreign agents to openly run espionage activities in our country, even if they clearly are acting to undermine us and do damage? By the same rationale, as long as we somehow magically 'secure' ourselves, it won't matter, because gosh they're going to try anyway, right? Seems ridiculous in that context perhaps, but presuming cyber attacks are any different is a problem that far too many Americans are guilty of.
1
1. Just because you find the facts tiresome does not make them any less true.
2. There is in fact evidence that Russians hacked some voting machines.
3. If the Dem candidate was a dud, what was the republican candidate?
3
Wow, nothing but rumor-mongering, gossipy hogwash here. I realize this is an opinion piece but what are the criteria for opinion pieces these days? Any disgruntled ex-employee of any entity can be given space to gossip and say nasty things about ex-employer without substantiating any of the claims made? Here the writer makes a lot of claims about facebook's intentions and character and backs them up with scant little to nothing of any substance or verifiability. And no concrete, workable suggestions for how to implement any of these sweeping legal oversight ideas.
If we enact legislation which is not enforceable we make a mockery of our own legal system. If, and how, facebook might be regulated is an awesome question which will involve the deep consideration of experts in many fields. It is a unique entity. The internet is in it's infancy. Silicon Valley is one of the most powerful entities on the globe and the American government desperately needs their cooperation and technologies. And so "it's complicated" as the saying goes.
Sure I don't want Zappo's to know what brands of shoes I prefer. But what of it when the US government was hacked for invaluable malware and spyware which has been selling on the internet to whoever for peanuts for months now, drip by drip. We're going to have to pick our battles and prioritize our resources vis a vis the internet problem writ large.
3
The internet is very decidedly not in its infancy. It's now barely recognizable from how it used to be -- and not in a good way.
2
Do we know who really controls Facebook?
Yes, Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO and has a control of a majority of the issued stock, but early on Russian oligarchs played an instrumental role in financing the company. Even before it went public, there was large amounts of Russian cash beginning funneled into its expansion, and even more money went in once it went public.
After a period of time, one of the oligarchs, in a very public display, cashed out, but to this day there is no public accounting of how much of the company he and others still control.
The FSK ( the successor to the KGB) saw, early on, the value of anonymous access to a growing population of users in the West.
We, as well as the British, have been "played" by Russian intelligence over the past few years. Indeed, could Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson be this generation's Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt?
6
Government is simply incapable of regulating these companies. They lack the basic understanding of the systems, the interactions and implications of data. They real method of market regulation would be the ability for users to have complete access to data being collected on a user or IP identified basis and have the right to prevent some or all of the data collection. If Congress wants to understand this, then run a hearing where Google and FB disclose all data on each member of Congress.
9
This is a huge obstacle. I find it hard to believe Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer know the first thing about the capabilities of these platforms, let alone how to regulate them. We might have to shift our understanding of a monopoly from one that is purely economic to one that includes something like "mindshare." But that's far down the road.
4
Facebook has never compelled anyone to join its ranks. The best possible regulation is for you to cancel your account. Facebook cannot exist without its customers - no company can.
8
Account holders are NOT the customers of Facebook. The customers are the ones who want access to the user data. Account holders are the product. That is why having an account is free.
11
@ Polly: "Account holders are NOT the customers of Facebook. The customers are the ones who want access to the user data. Account holders are the product. That is why having an account is free."
The point is, Polly, is that if you don't sign up, Facebook can't use your data. Facebook does not force you to to have an account.
This is a very courageous piece by the author and must be supported and protected from retaliatory actions by facebook. With the power it wields one's livelihood could be threatened by taking such a knowledgeable and experienced-based stand. I propose selecting one day per week when everyone refuses to use their facebook app as a means of forcing facebook and regulatory bodies (the ones that still function) to address and come up with some kind of solution. Let's try it for 6 months. I'm not a math wizard but I would think this would reduce facebook's revenue by 1/7th. Not chump change. As someone who has 16 facebook friends and uses it about once or twice a month, there's not a lot of fat to trim. But I'll find some. How about you?
8
There is absolutely no privacy in a facebook account - this company will tell anybody anything they have (for a fee) gleaned from whatever source. I once had a facebook account but quickly cancelled it when I found my web browsing habits were displayed publicly on my pages for anyone to see.
Another problem is that to cancel is not a trivial exercise. They really really don't want to loose you!
8
Every time I read an article that gives even the slightest insight into the attitude of the higher ups in the big social media organizations, I am glad that I never signed up for any of them. No Facebook. No Twitter. No Instagram. No Pintrest. No Snapchat. It is bad enough that Google has all my information and Amazon has a lot of it. I don't need to hand it out to anyone else.
4
I️ had never had a social media account until about a year ago. I️ was curious to see how they might work, but hesitant about privacy. So I️ created a gmail account with false data and used it to create a fake Facebook account with that email address and a false identity - name, birthdate, etc.
Never signed into the account after that, never posted a photo or comment, but after a couple months weird things started to happen. I️ got solicitations from people I️ didn’t know to friend them of course, but also from former high school classmates. Then it got weirder. I️ began to get friend me requests from clients, even though I️ never used my work email address, much less my company name or my career in the gmail or Facebook account.
You should be very afraid of Fakebook, as I️ call it. Zuckerberg is using his false utopian society story to find every bit of information about you, in legitimate ways that you agree to and in nefarious ways that you don’t.
Anyone with that amount of data and money can do very bad things in society, especially when completely unregulated, as proven in last years election.
14
Recently Facebook arbitrarily locked my account, claiming a suspicious login. The only way to unlock the account was through the submission of a document from a list that includes passport, drivers license, marriage certificate, social security card, personal insurance, and many, many more. This submission, Facebook claims, is intended to ensure that "the only person who has access to your account is you."
While Facebook encourages the user to cover up personal information, e.g. social security number, they also claim that their encryption system is totally safe and that the submitted information is deleted after 30-days.
Yeah. Right. And I have a bridge to sell you...
4
Other than making sure people can be informed about what Facebook (or any other social media / internet business does) they don't need any regulations especially for them. Let's say I want to influence the election by buying ads on Facebook, is anybody going to restrict me. If Russia wants to do that they can easily get someone to do it for them. Only restricting freedom would prevent that, and freedom is too important to be restricted.
Point of the article is that your freedom is currently being restricted by Facebook/social media.
2
As someone who teaches e-commerce, I am frequently surprised at my students' attitude regarding privacy and data collection. From their perspective, the concept of privacy in the internet era is quaint, and they are much more interested in the perceived benefits of having corporations know everything about them than the real threat of how their information can be used against them.
Information is power, and social media has too much of it. Yet until people realize the value of their personal information and stop freely handing it over, companies like Facebook will continue to thrive as they sell it to anyone willing to pay.
20
I teach college students too, and most of them are at best ambivalent about this. While they understand the mechanics of the trade, they are disturbed by the lack of limitations--self-imposed or external--on the ways these data are being used and to cope, they are becoming cynical. They feel helpless against the forces of e-capitalism that they are being told they have to put up with. Your e-commerce students are a self-selected group. It is in their interest, as future advantage-takers of these methods to further their careers, to sublimate any discomfort they might have.
3
This is like the report that cost millions that states smoking is not good for your health. It's not just Facebook either - please name one industry that regulates itself properly without being pushed to do so OR without government oversight.
This is also just one more of many reasons why the Trump administration simply doesn't give a hoot about anything other than dismantling protections for the public, restricting elections and transferring more wealth to the top.
We can't seem to get anything done that involves common sense in this country!
22
Well Gee we have a new term for individuals who need to be protected form anything and everything. I heard that some are afraid of the police and want them banned from campus. Where does it end?
I fail to see how data privacy is the important issue.
The real existential threat to our society lies in how these companies are using data to target and deliver content, to the point that (a) it preys on people's addictive nature, and (b) causes latent political radicalization.
An algorithm can be just as addictive as a cigarette, especially to a 12 year old kid. I'm not sure people over 25 understand how powerful YouTube has become. Kids care way more about Jake Paul and Dude Perfect than anything on TV. There needs to be a massive shift in societal awareness about how crazy addictive this stuff can be because it's so well targeted.
As for radicalization, we haven't seen the effects because unemployment is at 4%, everyone's 401(k) went up by 12% this year, and a huge TV costs $500. Sure there's this ping-ponging between the radical right and radical left, but it hasn't reached mass consciousness because people are doing pretty well.
Once the economy hits a rough patch, I'm afraid we're going too see political violence on the scale that makes Occupy look like child's play. All because FB and YT have allowed the little tribalistic monster inside all of us to take over. We're going to have to demand algorithms that take on some editorial role, and show us things we're not naturally going to agree with, often at the expense of "engagement."
I don't see regulation playing a huge role, actually. More important will be raising public awareness so people demand these changes.
11
Weak brains can be manipulated, the internet just makes it easier.
1
Is anyone surprised to learn this? New age digital titans are no different than the robber barons of the past, they've just created new ways to profit off the world at large. Self-regulation is a joke, as the author points out, facebook has no motivation at all to curtail the flow of revenue, no matter where it comes from. After all, we live in an age where shareholder value and mega-wealth are the only "values" held in high regard by global corporations.
15
A number of commentators, like the author of this article, object to the "violations of privacy" committed by social media sites like Facebook yet no one objects to the gross violations committed by intelligence agencies that record and maintain the most private communications of citizens on a scale so massive and ubiquitous that social media could not even imagine much less accomplish. Again and again, history shows us that the greatest and most dangerous threats to the privacy and civil rights of citizens has always come from the state and in our day that violation was clearly revealed by the secret activities exposed by Edward Snowden.
2
A sad reality is that while we object to any government agency collecting data us, private industry (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Facebook, Google and many more) collect more than 10 times that amount on us every single day, and we say nothing. The selling of private data last year was nearly a $50 Billion dollar industry, up from $32 Billion in 2015 and is on track to rise to nearly $80 Billion this year. This is all done without our permission or knowledge. It's time these people were reigned in. Back in the early 2000s, I was asked during an interview for a data architecture position how I felt about the emerging Web 2.0 concept (i.e. the personalization of webpages to the individual viewing - which required collecting data on that person). I stated then that while the idea was interesting in that it could allow people to have a greater connection with the website (and the then emerging concept of a website as a brand), I could also see enormous potential for abuse, as it would involve deep penetration of previously personal data and could lead to the siloing of data uptake by the individual. I didn't get the job, because I was viewed as not sufficiently entrepreneurial by the company, and I'm sad that my greatest fears have come to fruition. There was a time when we as viewers were forced to be exposed to multiple perspectives. We no longer are.
This has to change.
7
I'm still waiting to learn why Snowden ran to Russia before I decide what's what with him. At least with Facebook, I'm certain about Zuckerberg.
Facebook, like any company started on an idea, becomes beholden to the investors that bought its stock. There are no good companies, only good laws and regulations monitored by a free press and enforced by an educated public.
Bon chance mes amis.
21
Or there are mostly good corporations, they have a purpose and a fiduciary duty.
I am always hyper-conscious about what I post on Facebook, and am keenly aware that whatever information they have on me has been bought and sold hundreds of times. Facebook will simply give my information to the government, if asked.
I resent their sale of my info. as it essentially violates the 1st Amendment. Facebook didn't start the erosion of privacy--that began after 9/11 when suddenly Homeland Security didn't need a warrant to tap your phone or search your property.
But Facebook has taken advantage of Americans' habituation to loss of privacy. The company itself provides lousy customer service to users--clearly their profits do not trickle down to better service to users. It should. Without us, Facebook would have nothing to sell.
I like the EU's "opt in" plan. If you want electronic ads, you must sign a release saying so. It's to protect privacy and sale of your personal information. Facebook, Google and others who trade info. are fighting this regulation.
So why stick with a behemoth who cares little for its users? They're an alternate news source which covers international news and has a broader range of topics than the NYT.
4
Read your constitution and understand that the government is the only thing that the first amendment applies to, not say Facebook.
1
So. I guess the author thinks that any and every information and service source that can be reached via the Internet needs to be regulated (presumably by the federal government, the traditional regulator when the market fails). That would include The Washington Post and Amazon, along with most government agencies, commercial and non-commercial organizations and individuals with web sites (and their providers).
2
You prefer she just keep her mouth shut about what she saw at Facebook as an employee?
1
False equivalence.
No, we cannot trust Facebook to regulate itself the same way we cannot trust banks to regulate themselves or oil companies to regulate the environment. Oh! Wait! That is what is happening in the Trump era. Next: Internet neutrality.
185
And we generally can't trust the government to do so either. And yes the idea of net neutrality is basically stealing your assets. If I own and internet service and say a company wants to pay me for faster service that is fine. My customers might not like that and quit. The market will work, the regulations not.
If your customer that pays you for faster service is large enough and crucial enough, customers just can't "quit". Your "free market" analysis ignores reality, as most "free market" advocates do.
Certainly, if the gun industry can regulate itself, Facebook can as well. Our leaders are rightly focused on tax cuts and Hillary.
7
Facebook appears only willing to give the appearance of concern, and it cannot be trusted to monitor itself.
The Trump administration has such deep ties with Russia that it cannot be trusted to regulate any anti-Russian or espionage crimes, and the Republicans are uninterested.
Facebook could be monitored by the government (at the expense of FB) or be shut down entirely on the grounds that it cannot control its content from foreign propaganda. But FB is banking on government unwillingness to engage in a First Amendment court battle, as well as user-addicts who are indifferent to the controversy.
So far FB is playing the winning strategy by doing next to nothing.
4
Expecting FB to regulate itself is like expecting Congress to regulate itself. Ain't gonna happen.
4
Thank you, Sandy Parakilis, for having the courage to write this piece. I am convinced you have dozens of current or former colleagues at Facebook who wish they were strong enough to do the same. Anyone with a shred of conscience knows such handling of personal data is wrong and improper. For a company which has such a powerful hold on daily lives and lacks a moral compass, the question is not if to regulate it but how.
52
Quit Facebook! You can do it! Somebody come up with a 12-step program, quick!
Seriously, I quit it about five years ago. I don’t miss it. There is life after Zuckerberg.
68
I am another example of "You can do it". I joined FB at the very beginning, planning to watch it for a while before giving it any private information.
I quit before the first month was over and I am confirmed in this decision every single day. Still, I believe that anyone who quits should have the inalienable right to demand the destruction of all the information he gave away in the frenzy to "participate".
6
I just updated my Mozilla browser and needed new apps. The first 3 I clicked told me to hand over all my contacts, history, pictures, bank records, etc., or no app (their version sounded like they were doing me a favor). I declined.
I filled out an account form when Facebook was new but decided not to. Everyday I get an FB email telling me everyone I know -- real names -- eager for me to join. Before any birthday card, FB has a cake with the right number of candles to blow out.
Yes, FB should be regulated or broken up into discrete pieces so others can compete. We trust banks with our money because they're tightly regulated (or were). Why trust FB with equally valuable personal data without public oversight?
Marketing algorithms use the data to develop intimately detailed profiles that do Big Brother proud, and enable interests to micro target friend or foe with a custom fake reality.
Fb invades our lives in ways we'd never allow government. Information is (like CIA intel) essential to political control that's hostile to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the Bill of Rights.
And yet people on FB surrender themselves eagerly, oblivious to FB's digital cavity search extracting all content to sell at a profit to anyone who'll pay, like Putin's secret web subversives, who paid in Rubles.
Facebook is half the problem. We're the other half.
There's no public without privacy.
18
So don't give them any of that, very simple.
@Vulcanalex
Simple or simple-minded? I don't and have never used Facebook. But my personal data is aggregated without or without my knowledge or permission by legal and illegal entities. To wit: credit rating companies receive and collect financial and consumer data about me. Recently a major credit agency was hacked and millions of files were stolen. Reportedly credit card numbers were for sale on the dark web within hours to hackers who steal identities for criminal purposes. I didn't give the credit agencies permission to collect my data (unless it was part of an incomprehensible 10,000 word "agreement" you click on a splash page).
Digital may be the ocean we have to swim in but I'm all for collective efforts (i.e., government) to keep the sharks at bay.
Facebook is rapidly becoming, in my mind, the unsavory face of much of what is going wrong in the US: corporate and individual addiction to immediate profit/gratification at the expense of broader social interests.
68
Simple solution - have a referendum to vote on whether FB or any company must comply and destroy their files on you when requested. It can be done on a local state level, with less chance of bribery or revenge by FB. The law will apply to app developers on your iPad or cell phone, some of whom is collecting and selling personal data.
10
One simple solution would be to exclude users of Facebook and other social media from voting.
8
There are undoubtedly problems that require government intervention -- problems that otherwise wouldn't be solved or mitigated. This is not one of them. Everyone knows Facebook collects data on individuals, which is then used by third parties. If you don't want your data to be collected by Facebook, don't join Facebook. Facebook, like Twitter, only exists because people want to use it. There's no inherent value in either company or the "service" they provide. No one truly needs to be on Facebook, even if society "expects" that organizations and certain individuals will be on it. Somehow companies and political candidates would survive without Facebook, as would every other entity that has joined. Setting up yet another government agency to regulate something that people do voluntarily and with no harm to others (i.e., if you join Facebook I'm not harmed) is not the answer.
17
You miss the point. This is about Facebook only to the extent that Facebook won't take any steps to prevent its own platform from being abused. This isn't a debate about whether or not individuals should use Facebook; it's about the fact that Facebook was used by the government of another country to warp an American presidential election, and about the fact that this is impermissible IF we hope to maintain control of our political process. So there's your debate: whether or not Americans care enough about their own national sovereignty to do anything about it. I do; your mileage may vary.
5
Your view seems a little naive. The fact that there is no inherent value in Facebook and the service it provides does nothing to dissuade ordinary people from using it for their own reasons: fun, updates, contacts, broadening shrunken worlds, etc. I don’t feel sure yet that “everyone knows Facebook collects data on individuals, which is then used by third parties”, and even if they did, how many persons would make the leap that a country like Russia could access and “use” said data in ways more nefarious than selling more widgets? This type of situation — the overtaking and abuse of a product or service meant only for innocent time-passing —is the very reason governments move to intervene. As for “with no harm to others”, your take is so blatantly wrong in the light of this discussion that I’m tempted to enquirer whether your real name is Vladimir?
3
So if you don't like robo calls, discontinue your phone service?
2
It's not just about personal privacy. Most groups now use Facebook as their main Web presence, presumably because the Facebook format facilitates announcements and intra-group communication. For a political candidate, it's expected. For a neighborhood or volunteer group without the wherewithal to pay a Web master, it's the best alternative. Facebook has this monopoly locked up.
I belong to one, and only one, Facebook group, under a pseudonym, because an organization I volunter with relies on their Faceobook group. But Facebook has my email, and it's scary how far they can take that.
Facebook has struck a Faustian bargain, and we all pay.
205
So get an email to go with your facebook identity. Very simple.
1
Correction: FB is the Devil, and we are Faust selling our souls.
4
Maybe, but then I have different emails for the same volunteer group. Meanwhile, Facebook still has my IP address and can connect the dots...
My main point is that if you don't do Facebook, you miss out on a lot of groups and information.
2
All the tech companies, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, .. , are collecting private data on children and adults. And they do it with the help of schools. The tech companies get big sales and data, and we get worse education, inappropriate content, contact with pedophiles, and time-wasting applications.
56
Any regulation to restrict data acquisition or sharing is counter to the Facebook business model. Regulations could hurt the Facebook stock market value. Facebook is a wealthy corporation with the means to effect Congressional and Presidential elections. Therefore one can assume that Facebook not only lacks incentive to block misuse, but it also has the means to block regulations.
73
Which spells, of course, the failure of the American experiment.
4
If you did not mean “affect”, then you have me deeply worried.
Privacy.
To me it's as simple as that. People who voluntarily "post" their private images, thoughts, family plans, and innermost thoughts on a platform that goes out into the world, that virtually never goes away, and that they don't fully understand - the process, the people in control, the fine print, the limitations, the agenda - are simply not very concerned about privacy matters.
To me, privacy is a great treasure, a privilege to be protected. So important is it that the founders created a "right" under our Constitution - to be cherished.
I do not have a Facebook page, do not really know what Instagram is, and do not Tweet. I don't believe that very many people are truly interested in my every move, nor am I that interested in theirs.
I have several close friends, and we share, by talking to each other and getting together when we can, the parts of our lives that we - and they - find interesting - or nurturing - or defining - or just fun.
We write to each other - real, paper and pen letters sent by snail mail - that are a delight to receive, meant only for us, for our eyes only - and are tangible evidence of our relationship, our willingness to take some time to nurture it, to share our lives with each other - privately.
We send photos - real photos - of children growing or gatherings we missed or the beauty of the places we live or something unusual we did or some place we traveled to. They are few, and treasured in albums.
Privacy.
222
There is no "Right to Privacy" in our Constitution, or in the Bill of Rights The protection of personal privacy developed out of judicial cases, criminal law, medical autonomy, family law, and other legal areas.
37
What you say was true from 1789 to 1868. During that period, the personal right to privacy had existed for centuries in the portion of the law that was assigned to States -- the common law, which included tort law.
Basic torts included ancient protections for one's home, one's image, and one's property. When the 14th Amendment elevated fundamental rights to the federal level, privacy protection remained a State power, but now was subject to federal supremacy over privacy matters.
So privacy has been in the US Constitution far longer than the brief period when it was limited to the States.
10
Yes, there is a section of the Bill of Rights related to the right to privacy; it is in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. How it is being applied to electronic/digital information is still being determined. To say that this protection does not exist is fallacious.
The Fourth Amendment's application, however, is related to governmental intrusion - not commercial exploitation - at least at the moment. It is quite like that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned how "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" could be compromised in the Digital Age.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
7
Does anyone know what is going on when a website allows you to sign in using your Facebook account name and password?
80
I don't know about what happens when you use a Facebook account to sign in but I despise the websites that FORCE you to have a Facebook page to make comments on news stories. I don't have a Facebook account and would never get one and it is maddening that it controls so much now.
22
Nobody that I know of does that, they allow you to sign up directly as an option, one I don't like.
good question. I hope someone responds.
1
It is not surprising that Facebook would not regulate itself. Where are the incentives to do so?
Even now, a large number of consumers are unaware of the risks of sharing their personal data with internet companies. Even if they are, conformity bias makes them ignore the risks. They are willing to share even more minute details of their lives such as health and lifestyle data or let companies eavesdrop into your conversations through smart home devices. They don't understand the risks of profiling through such widespread technologies like Machine Learning. They don't know that their fitness tracker data can be used to deny them medical insurance in the near future. These risks are largely very abstract just like the Russian meddling in US elections. It's not visible or visceral like a military invasion. Studies have demonstrated that people don't respond well to abstract threats or situations. It is very important for institutions to figure out how to build consumer awareness which would lead to appropriate regulations.
63
Good point. I would add that schools should be educating children about the benefits and the risks of using social media, and the related issues which result from its use.
30
I would also argue that parents should be educating their children about the "benefits and risks" of social media. Also, don't think it's just social media that is tracking our children's data. With an increasing amount of curriculum in online platforms, and an increasing amount of schools buying one-to-one chromebooks/ipads, our students' are learning in a way that makes them comfortable sharing in online environments. Yes, there is digital citizenship that teachers can help students navigate, but parents have some responsibility too.
8
I wonder if you or many actually read the fine print on any contract related to programs. I sure don't. The option is to accept or not use, not much of an option.
2
How can we regulate Facebook? The current congress will not help. Fortunately, Facebook is located in Menlo Park California. The State of California, along with other western States meed to encourage Facebook to do the right thing. Fortunately peer corporations and and a Silicon Valley consciousnesses at least in words supports protecting privacy and other ethically sound public policy. The see an understand our Democracy is under attack. Even the City of Melo Park could have influence of Facebook .
13
So we defend our democracy taking away civil rights? Peripheral use these services have an obligation to understand what they are signing up for and to protect themselves, How can we trust any government, let alone this one, to do this for us?
3
In the journalistic accounts and the derivative movie about Facebook's origins, deceit and betrayal play leading roles. It appears that at the core of. this strange phenomenon of a business deceit and betrayal remain core values.
61
No, as a matter of policy it should be self-evident that we can’t trust ANY corporation to regulate itself. It’s an obligation of Congress to provide regulatory guidance by way of authorizing law to Executive agencies to enforce, to fund those efforts and to supervise the effective enforcement of such law. But the author’s argument placing blame on Facebook for failures of our intelligence community is every bit as outrageous as the distraction of inveighing against Trump as campaigner for the failure of the Obama administration to detect and PREVENT Russian interference.
Suggesting that it’s Facebook’s responsibility to detect and prevent Russian acts to disseminate “fake news”, manipulative disinformation to serve what Russia’s leaders regarded as acts in defense of THEIR national interests, is to suggest that Facebook is responsible for what we charge the FBI, CIA and NSA to do. One might question whether Congress is willing to grant to Facebook the same financial resources to do so that we grant Homeland Security agencies to do what they’re supposed to do.
Wikipedia tells us that The Washington Post reported in 2010 that there were 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies in 10,000 locations in the U.S. working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence, and that the intelligence community as a whole consists of 854,000 (!!!) people holding top-secret clearances.
14
What were all these people DOING? People who by one path or another all report to the president? Clearly, they weren’t preventing the Russians from interfering in our elections. If this had been Japan and 1945, key people in the Obama administration would have been reaching for the Seppuku knives.
What our intelligence community has concluded is that Russians essentially INVADED us, not with troops but with bots and fake ads and postings with a political intent inimical to the functioning of our central institutions. How in heaven’s name is it a specific CORPORATION’S responsibility to detect and prevent such an invasion?
One might rationally argue that our official governmental institutions have given up the ghost on trying to protect us and as a diversion seek to foist this responsibility on mere COMPANIES.
Facebook is about openness (and making money). As the author admits, this always has been the case. But true openness presents vulnerabilities. I’m sure that Facebook now is seeking to guard against those vulnerabilities to the extent of its own capacities to do so; but the real question is what our professional and official intelligence arms, with the vast resources at their disposal dedicated to guarding just these vulnerabilities, are doing to prevent future invasions of our society by potential and real adversaries.
11
As the author pointed out, Facebook, along with most other corporations are demanding the "right" to regulate themselves and/or leaving it to the so-called free market to sort things out. Government seems to have gotten out of the regulation business about the time ATT was broken up. Government is more than happy to oblige. It has a vested interest in our data as much as corporations do.
14
Richard: I agree with you but would add that there we as a nation also have a civic responsibility to educate our children better in regard to this kind of menace. As I’ve mentioned, I recently retired from teaching high school English. In the last few years of my career, I focused more and more on critical reading and understanding of social media posts. I developed a method students could use to investigate and cross-reference stories they saw online, and I taught them some basic “rules of engagement,” such as the very simple “check the source before you repost” rule. We also worked a great deal on how to contribute meaningful civil discourse to social media threads, so that they didn't just devolve into useless name-calling. If we are going to live in a free and open society (which I very much want to do), then we have to take personal responsibility to inform ourselves about and participate constructively in that society.
5
When you have a company whose median age is under 30, you're bound to have problems. There's little insight into the "game over" scenario due to lack of experience. Hiring the best coder takes precedence over hiring well-rounded experienced "adults". Disinterest in protecting users (and the rest of world) from misuse of the product will lead to a catastrophic event that no one will be prepared for, of least of all Facebook.
162
Papaya: Precisely! These 30-somethings worry me - smart perhaps, but little life experience, and that is my objection to people like Stephen Miller as a senior adviser to Trump, and then there's Papadopoulus - these youngsters lack judgement. Same with Facebook!
4
We're going to call the people running a business worth $500 billion children? We send 14 year olds to prison to serve life sentences without parole. Cynicism, irresponsibility, recklessness and greed are equally tempting to people of all ages. We need to welcome the young people to society and to the repercussions for harming it.
2
Correct, Americans can not be trusted to self regulate.
2
Broadcasters were long subject to the Fairness Doctrine assuring that coverage was both fair and truthful. Political broadcast ads are tightly regulated with transparency requirements specifically to keep foreign actors from influencing American elections. With the market share of FB and Googles YouTube - and Twitter’s influence far exceeding broadcast market shares, its well past time to put social media companies on a regulatory leash. And a short one at that.
Those social media boards and executives may not care or believe that our democracy is at stake, but the rest of us now do.
420
First they actually have to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It is currently not being used, and this is a large part of the problem with media lacking accountability.
3
Ronald Reagan’s appointees to the FCC got rid of the Fairness Doctrine back in 87. Between that and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision conservatives have worked hard at getting rid of honest news. Instead we get Russian meddling which our ”fair and balanced” Fox fake news source assures us isn’t worth worrying about.
2
Say no to self regulation and free speech, we must control the message and what you are allowed to think.
I had been on FB since 2006 or so but haven't been on it for 2 years. I do not miss it. And Twitter is even worse. Info content? Zero. Since I used an Adblocker, I never had a lot of problems anyway but switching to the use of direct messaging only showed me whom I really wanted to hang out with. Also, data far more dangerous are given away everyday by Equifax and friends.
79
Same here. Don’t miss it one bit. I enjoy real life instead.
1
Actually, what Equifax et al. have is chicken feed compared to what Facebook has.
3
"The message was clear: The company just wanted negative stories to stop. It didn’t really care how the data was used."
I watched part of that AXIOS interview, and found Sheryl Sandberg totally unconvincing, almost annoying in her earnestness.
That said, I think sometimes social media users are part of the problem, because if they demanded greater control of data, or better, abandoned FB altogether, well, then I'm pretty sure Sandberg would come around.
Ever since the degree of Russian ad targeting on Facebook, I find myself visiting the site less and less. Never a heavy user--I find the feed to be one long obnoxious billboard of trivia--I keep debating whether to cancel my account altogether.
But I know many don't feel that way, and some are addicted. If so, buyer beware. Since American business can't ever be trusted to do the right thing, either consumers will come to demand it, or they will simply get fed up with the site.
Maybe the answer is to force Facebook to put a running disclaimer at the top of the feed, something to the effect, "Leave all hope ye who enter."
Because if you're expecting your data to be safe, or that Facebook will have a come to Jesus moment, you'll be sadly disappointed.
425
When capitalism leads the way, as it does in our country, all companies have to do to make a fortune off our backs is to make it impossible to live without their product, and make it seem like our choice. It’s especially helpful when the education system buys in, because then you can get lifers who aren’t given them information to make a choice until it’s too late. And it seems our government is more and more complicit with every passing day.
5
Recently quit FB for the reasons outlined here. I am very happy with this decision. A waste of time that is being better spent on activism and volunteering.
7
Don't look to Sheryl Sandberg for particular insight. She quite some time ago proved where she is at with any kind of critical thinking A big disappointment to millions everywhere. Sandberg has just been adept at playing the game in the valley and is trotted out when they want to "show face." In this case, she is supposed to be more erudite.....
1
The European Union has strong privacy regulations that give users more control over their data and more assurance of privacy. The USA should adopt similar legislation. I don't think that will happen in the near future however given that our current government cares more about wealthy corporations (and campaign contributions) than they do about the American people.
372
The EU's Global Data Protection Regulation will go into effect May 2018 nad any American company wnating to do buisness with EU member states will need to comply with strict regulations around how data is captured, used, tsored and destroyed, as well as clear data privcay notices, consumer right to receive report on any data a company has about a person and right to be forgotten. Moreover, children's data have even stricter regulations. Any company in violation can be fined up to 4% of gross revenue. FB is on the GDPR radar as the EU will be making an example of high profile corporate data privacy abusers. May 2018 is coming uqickly.
3
Luckily GDPR will impact Americans, since companies need to be able to build the right of EU members to be forgotten into software regardless of where it is delivered.
Our current government doesn't even care about Russia interfering in our election and is doing absolutely nothing to make sure it doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020. I have no faith in the current government to do anything but enrich themselves and destroy our protections.
3
"Remember the age of Farmville and Candy Crush? The premise was simple: Users agreed to give game developers access to their data in exchange for free use of addictive games."
We sold access to our private behavior before knowing its value. In 2005 we didn't anticipate how Big Data could monetize every shred of our online lives, and with such precision. And we couldn't have imagined how that data could be used against us, let alone against our democracy.
154
"We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself"
That should be no surprise. Regulation came into being because no corporate sector can be trusted to regulate itself, simply because it has the sole mission of making the most money for its shareholders. By the time trump and his henchmen are done, we will have to learn that lesson again, the hard way. The only regulations of interest to trump are directed against those he perceives as political or business opponents.
470
@Mancuroc: couldn't agree more. Just wait if this monster of a tax plan goes through, and the nation plunges into a major depression. The latter will happen as a result of, not simply after, Trump's massive deregulations on just about every industry in this country.
And don't count on the Consumer Protection Agency, either, as it's about to be axed. Its director just left, so I can only imagine who will replace Cordray--Maybe Tom Price or Carl Icahn, or anyone else driven out of the administration following financial exploitation of consumers.
133
Article and comments have convinced me to quit FB even though I don't post about mu private life. I also wonder if FB users really click on the ads and purchase the products. I ignore the ads. Clicks on the ads don't necessarily mean that FB-ers buy. FB must know this, but do the advertisers realize this?
Who would rely on a corporation to police itself when there is money to be made?
8
If you and I were still on FB, I'd be sending you a friend request. As it is, I'll follow you here. Good work, Christine.
3