Curious opening, that. "If someone has to tell you that they care about your privacy, they probably don't" because I do wonder what people who do care about your privacy are supposed to say?...
Curious opening, that. "If someone has to tell you that they care about your privacy, they probably don't" because I do wonder what people who do care about your privacy are supposed to say? Signal's blog constantly talks about how much they care about user privacy, are we supposed to think now that they probably don't?
Other than that, this is pretty much copy/paste "Zuck bad, Facebook bad" rattling. Don't get me wrong, Zuckerberg is a very weird dude with some very strange ideas, many of which I don't agree with; and Meta are a vast multiheaded hydra with plenty of good and bad and neither heads flapping around all over the place. But I'm not quite sure what the author is trying to say except they think Zuck is lying when he says "the future is private"
Maybe the Zuckbot has changed his tune. Maybe not. I guess we'll see.
Signal can be seen as the exception to prove the rule. Most cookie banners that say 'we value your privacy' mean the opposite. This isn't a particularly original peice, just putting my ideas on...
Signal's blog constantly talks about how much they care about user privacy, are we supposed to think now that they probably don't?
Signal can be seen as the exception to prove the rule. Most cookie banners that say 'we value your privacy' mean the opposite.
Other than that, this is pretty much copy/paste "Zuck bad, Facebook bad" rattling.
This isn't a particularly original peice, just putting my ideas on the topic to paper.
But I'm not quite sure what the author is trying to say except they think Zuck is lying when he says "the future is private"
Not really aiming for anything profound, just trying to write about Facebook in a hopefully enjoyable way.
On that note, some say that opinion articles have to contain opinions that rational people can disagree with. This article probably doesn't fill that critiera (it would have had to be more pro-Facebook), but hey ho.
Maybe the Zuckbot has changed his tune. Maybe not. I guess we'll see.
Exceptions don't prove rules. I've never understood why people say that, but anyway. I chose signal because they are very loudly privacy-plus, but I could have picked loads of other places too....
Exceptions don't prove rules. I've never understood why people say that, but anyway. I chose signal because they are very loudly privacy-plus, but I could have picked loads of other places too. Back when it existed in a meaningful way my own proto-social-network website said it cared about privacy and I can say with 100% certainty that we did. I know, because I had the arguments with the lawyers and people who wanted to not care as much as I did.
As you appear to be the author I can ask you directly - how do you imagine people who do care about your privacy would be able to tell you they do?
He almost certainly hasn't - he just pretends to.
I'm not sure he does pretend. I think he probably has a different idea of what 'privacy' means than you, and both of you from me as well. It's not a clearly defined thing, and it means lots of different things to different people. But even if Zuck is pretending, does that matter? What matters is what Meta do, and we don't know what that is yet.
Signal obviously care about privacy - but they make this clear in their actions and their words. They are open source, they don't have articles coming out every week about a new scandal. Facebook...
I chose signal because they are very loudly privacy-plus, but I could have picked loads of other places too.
Signal obviously care about privacy - but they make this clear in their actions and their words. They are open source, they don't have articles coming out every week about a new scandal. Facebook seems to always have scandals, but aren't doing much other than saying that they care about privacy.
As you appear to be the author I can ask you directly - how do you imagine people who do care about your privacy would be able to tell you they do?
In an ideal world they wouldn't need to tell you. In terms of companies, being audited is a great way to do this. As for people, this could mean asking for permission before taking phots and so on.
I think he probably has a different idea of what 'privacy' means than you, and both of you from me as well.
As the end of the article states, Zuckerberg does care about privacy. Unless you are an exhibitionist with masochistic desires of suffering identity theft, discrimination, joblessness, public humiliation and totalitarianism, among other misfortunes, you care about privacy. It's why you have curtains and lock doors.
What matters is what Meta do, and we don't know what that is yet.
Pretty much - but given Facebook's track record it seems unlikely to be good.
Unfortunately we live in the real world. More importantly, your ideal world isn't my ideal world, which I'll go into a bit more detail about below. I think telling people about things is still a...
In an ideal world they wouldn't need to tell you. In terms of companies, being audited is a great way to do this. As for people, this could mean asking for permission before taking phots and so on.
Unfortunately we live in the real world. More importantly, your ideal world isn't my ideal world, which I'll go into a bit more detail about below. I think telling people about things is still a pretty good way to let people know things. Obviously that still needs to be backed up with actions, but why not do both?
As the end of the article states, Zuckerberg does care about privacy. Unless you are an exhibitionist with masochistic desires of suffering identity theft, discrimination, joblessness, public humiliation and totalitarianism, among other misfortunes, you care about privacy. It's why you have curtains and lock doors.
Well, I don't have curtains in most of my house and my doors are generally only locked when I'm out, and the latter is more to prevent theft than anything to do with privacy. "Privacy" means different things to different people. For example, I couldn't care less about targetted advertising. 90% of the time I just click "accept all" on cookie banners because it's just easier. I have a Facebook account which I use regularly and I'm signed in to Google most of the time (although I don't use Chrome). I don't feel any of that represents a meaningful invasion of my privacy, because I am so much more than my browsing habits nor my social media profile and I simply don't care about being one of a few billion lines in an advertising profile database somewhere. I prefer E2E instant messaging but if people really want to talk over FB Messenger or SMS then I'll talk to them that way without concern.
So you see how people and companies need to tell you about privacy? It's not a binary state, it's a large and multidimensional thing. Your idea of privacy might seem weird and paranoid to me, my idea of privacy might seem masochistic and insane to you. It's an important thing to talk about, to explain where everyone stands and what everyone is doing. If I tell you I care about your privacy, I probably do - but what I think privacy is might not line up with what you think it is.
As it stands right now, and I know this in part because one of my oldest friends works there and we've talked about this exact issue - Facebook take privacy very seriously, they just do so with different parameters than you. They don't think that building a profile about you in order to anonymously target ads is an invasion of your privacy and personally I pretty much agree. I'd rather they didn't do it, but they have to make money somehow so meh. My Facebook profile is about as private as I care for it to be, but I could lock it down further if I wanted.
I like and agree with the bulk of the article, but I'm really sick of people comparing Zuck to a robot or whatever. I dunno if he's actually autistic or not, but people openly throw every...
I like and agree with the bulk of the article, but I'm really sick of people comparing Zuck to a robot or whatever. I dunno if he's actually autistic or not, but people openly throw every anti-autistic cliche at him constantly and it's just incredibly insulting.
We can talk about how evil he is without making people who sound and move similar to him feel like shit.
Curious opening, that. "If someone has to tell you that they care about your privacy, they probably don't" because I do wonder what people who do care about your privacy are supposed to say? Signal's blog constantly talks about how much they care about user privacy, are we supposed to think now that they probably don't?
Other than that, this is pretty much copy/paste "Zuck bad, Facebook bad" rattling. Don't get me wrong, Zuckerberg is a very weird dude with some very strange ideas, many of which I don't agree with; and Meta are a vast multiheaded hydra with plenty of good and bad and neither heads flapping around all over the place. But I'm not quite sure what the author is trying to say except they think Zuck is lying when he says "the future is private"
Maybe the Zuckbot has changed his tune. Maybe not. I guess we'll see.
Hopefully being open source is stronger than any statement?
Fairly sure Facebook isn't going open source anytime soon!
Meta have more open source projects than I thought they did though. I'm impressed.
Yes of course. I was mentioning in general.
Signal can be seen as the exception to prove the rule. Most cookie banners that say 'we value your privacy' mean the opposite.
This isn't a particularly original peice, just putting my ideas on the topic to paper.
Not really aiming for anything profound, just trying to write about Facebook in a hopefully enjoyable way.
On that note, some say that opinion articles have to contain opinions that rational people can disagree with. This article probably doesn't fill that critiera (it would have had to be more pro-Facebook), but hey ho.
He almost certainly hasn't - he just pretends to.
Exceptions don't prove rules. I've never understood why people say that, but anyway. I chose signal because they are very loudly privacy-plus, but I could have picked loads of other places too. Back when it existed in a meaningful way my own proto-social-network website said it cared about privacy and I can say with 100% certainty that we did. I know, because I had the arguments with the lawyers and people who wanted to not care as much as I did.
As you appear to be the author I can ask you directly - how do you imagine people who do care about your privacy would be able to tell you they do?
I'm not sure he does pretend. I think he probably has a different idea of what 'privacy' means than you, and both of you from me as well. It's not a clearly defined thing, and it means lots of different things to different people. But even if Zuck is pretending, does that matter? What matters is what Meta do, and we don't know what that is yet.
Signal obviously care about privacy - but they make this clear in their actions and their words. They are open source, they don't have articles coming out every week about a new scandal. Facebook seems to always have scandals, but aren't doing much other than saying that they care about privacy.
In an ideal world they wouldn't need to tell you. In terms of companies, being audited is a great way to do this. As for people, this could mean asking for permission before taking phots and so on.
As the end of the article states, Zuckerberg does care about privacy. Unless you are an exhibitionist with masochistic desires of suffering identity theft, discrimination, joblessness, public humiliation and totalitarianism, among other misfortunes, you care about privacy. It's why you have curtains and lock doors.
Pretty much - but given Facebook's track record it seems unlikely to be good.
Unfortunately we live in the real world. More importantly, your ideal world isn't my ideal world, which I'll go into a bit more detail about below. I think telling people about things is still a pretty good way to let people know things. Obviously that still needs to be backed up with actions, but why not do both?
Well, I don't have curtains in most of my house and my doors are generally only locked when I'm out, and the latter is more to prevent theft than anything to do with privacy. "Privacy" means different things to different people. For example, I couldn't care less about targetted advertising. 90% of the time I just click "accept all" on cookie banners because it's just easier. I have a Facebook account which I use regularly and I'm signed in to Google most of the time (although I don't use Chrome). I don't feel any of that represents a meaningful invasion of my privacy, because I am so much more than my browsing habits nor my social media profile and I simply don't care about being one of a few billion lines in an advertising profile database somewhere. I prefer E2E instant messaging but if people really want to talk over FB Messenger or SMS then I'll talk to them that way without concern.
So you see how people and companies need to tell you about privacy? It's not a binary state, it's a large and multidimensional thing. Your idea of privacy might seem weird and paranoid to me, my idea of privacy might seem masochistic and insane to you. It's an important thing to talk about, to explain where everyone stands and what everyone is doing. If I tell you I care about your privacy, I probably do - but what I think privacy is might not line up with what you think it is.
As it stands right now, and I know this in part because one of my oldest friends works there and we've talked about this exact issue - Facebook take privacy very seriously, they just do so with different parameters than you. They don't think that building a profile about you in order to anonymously target ads is an invasion of your privacy and personally I pretty much agree. I'd rather they didn't do it, but they have to make money somehow so meh. My Facebook profile is about as private as I care for it to be, but I could lock it down further if I wanted.
I like and agree with the bulk of the article, but I'm really sick of people comparing Zuck to a robot or whatever. I dunno if he's actually autistic or not, but people openly throw every anti-autistic cliche at him constantly and it's just incredibly insulting.
We can talk about how evil he is without making people who sound and move similar to him feel like shit.