Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/facebook-isnt-sorry-it-just-wants-your-data

by minimaxir • 8 years ago

352 155 8 years ago

metalrain2• 8 years ago

So what would be next great wave of internet companys, that doesn't profit on your data? Actually just data storage with strong private encryption?

elvinyung• 8 years ago

What about something like Patreon? There probably needs to be a social and cultural shift (i.e. not just technology) to make micropayment "marketplaces" for creators and content actually viable, but I would actually reasonably bet that this is one probable way forward.

jermaustin1• 8 years ago

I look at Patreon profiles for pretty popular YouTube channels, and rarely do I see them pulling in more than a few hundred bucks a month.

I can only assume they earn most of their money via YT Monetization or with their own ads in video.

noncoml• 8 years ago

Is it your data that it wants or your attention?

inetknght• 8 years ago

Why not both?

metalrain2• 8 years ago

Data can be used to get attention. So data first, then however they can monetize that.

zamalek• 8 years ago

Attention is then, in-turn, used to get data. It's a lucrative feedback loop.

snarf212• 8 years ago

They are a righteous circle feeding each other and both for sale to the highest bidder.

dabockster6• 8 years ago

I only largely use Facebook for the events calendar anymore. Big brands and community groups use that part of the site heavily for event promotion. If we want Facebook to become obsolete, we would need to create a comparable event promotion experience elsewhere. So far, though, I've only seen inroads into discovering events already being promoted. The real money is disrupting how events are promoted so the customer doesn't have to do any "discovery" what so ever.

snarf212• 8 years ago

You've hit on the key, make it lazy for the user.

Don't make them go search on meetup or eventbrite like a neanderthal.

dabockster6• 8 years ago

As I said in my post, Eventbrite can't compete because all the organizations are posting events to Facebook exclusively. You would have to get them to change that practice before users will move.

Zelphyr2• 8 years ago

My apologies for the accusatory tone but aren't you kind-of proving the point of the article? Keeping your Facebook account because of the events calendar means you place more value in convenience than you do privacy, Facebook knows it, and they're not going to change.

stinos2• 8 years ago

Unless OP uses a dummy/fakse account in a container maybe; I wonder what FB still knows about the real you then?

codyb3• 8 years ago

Wouldn't facebook already have his data anyways even if he deleted his account? I thought they were even making shadow profiles of people who didn't exist?

So if he's not adding new information the only info he's giving them is by what events he clicks which is still valuable.

And then of course if he browses the web with the facebook cookie that probably gives them a significant amount of browser habits, no? Which i feel like really doesn't get enough attention.

dabockster6• 8 years ago

Maybe I am. The point I was trying to make is that FB has event organizers sold on the idea that FB is the place to promote an event. So new events will pretty much elusively be posted to Facebook. You'd have to disrupt that advertising mentality in order to convince users to leave.

fermienrico6• 8 years ago

It’s very simple: As a consumer, we cannot trust any advertisement company. Their goals are in direct conflict with user privacy. In fact it’s not a wishful goal, it is their business model.

Our attention is very expensive and everything is designed around us to grab us by the neck so to speak. Flashing ads, stories and feeds.

I cannot, absolutely cannot, trust Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook, Visa, Amex, MasterCard, etc. These businesses bullshit their way through with “We want to make the world a better place by connecting people.” Yes, that’s great. So charge us for your service and stop forcing me to view ads, selling off my privacy into a giant bidding war of advertisers. Fuck advertisement.

Apple is an exception and I hope they continue to charge premium for their products. I’m happy to shell out money for privacy. But you never know when a multi billion dollar company all of a sudden decides to take a different route. Tim Cook has great personal ethics but we don’t know about the next CEO.

Mark my words: The next big successful companies will be around user privacy. Apple has started to market themselves as such already in their keynotes. Duckduckgo is selling it as their main value proposition.

Edit from comments below: Amazon, Walmart, Sears, Netflix, Visa, Amex, MC.

jakelazaroff• 8 years ago

I agree in general, but what free ad-supported services do Adobe and Microsoft offer?

bstn2• 8 years ago

Bing?

marmaduke• 8 years ago

Maybe the recent open source efforts and GitHub thing: if devs aren’t paying..

noxToken• 8 years ago

Adobe[0] has an entire analytics/tracking platform.

Microsoft is likely about the telemetry stuff happening in Windows 10. They're not supported by ads, but the tracking baking into the OS is a non-starter for a lot of tech folks.

[0] https://www.adobe.com/analytics/adobe-analytics.html

lozaning• 8 years ago

Curious as to how you lump Adobe in with that group. Last I checked they just wanted everyone to buy photoshop, did something change?

EDIT: Damn, F Adobe

iscrewyou• 8 years ago

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/20/adobe-gets-its-company-sna...

Edit: changed link from wsj to tc

bstn2• 8 years ago

They have trackers, as documented on https://better.fyi/trackers/

s3r3nity• 8 years ago

Adobe has a massive DMP ("Data Management Platform.")

I recommend taking some time to research DMPs and their place ad-tech ecosystem, if you're not aware about them, and be prepared to shit your pants at what they know about you.

pmiller26• 8 years ago

/s/buy photoshop/subscribe to Creative Suite/g and you’re right, IMO.

John_KZ2• 8 years ago

For one thing, Adobe reader will scan your Windows computer for documents and upload all the titles and authors to Adobe's servers. I don't know if they also upload content by now, but I would guess they probably just fingerprint it, not upload the whole thing. So yeah, Adobe isn't your friend. Of course neither is Apple (you know how obsessed HN seems to be with Apple)

pmiller26• 8 years ago

You left off Amazon from the “can’t trust” list. IMO they would be there even if they hadn’t recently started expanding into advertising, because their business model seems to be to expand existing operations until there’s a critical mass, then slither off into an adjacent sector and repeat.

And, just to round out the list, Netflix looks like one that’s actually trustworthy. They don’t advertise, and the info they have on me is pretty limited, anyway.

fermienrico6• 8 years ago

That's a good point about Amazon, I added it. Amazon has an incredible amount of data about my purchase history. I'll also add Amex, Visa, and MasterCard.

Netflix - I am conflicted between the choice of giving up my privacy to provide better suggestions. How about I actively go research for a particular movie on my own? Why do I need AI telling me what to watch. Word of mouth is a fantastic way to get recommendations. On the other hand, I would have not found interesting music on Spotify if it wasn't for their recommendation system / radio.

downrightmike3• 8 years ago

There are US laws against sharing out what shows people are watching. So kinda nips that model in the bud.

lotsofpulp• 8 years ago

There are enormous amounts of product placement in Netflix's content.

joelx• 8 years ago

China and Russia have major disinformation campaigns running in the United States and around the world. These campaigns have been heavily documented by news organizations and American defense agencies.

A major branch of Russia and China's attack is the ongoing negative PR campaign against tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Can these companies improve? Sure. But their infractions are incredibly minor compared to the dictatorships rising in Russia, China, Turkey, etc that are murdering foreign citizens as well as large numbers of their own. They are stealing billions of dollars from their own citizens and taking the world down a terrifying path.

Please reconsider the easy targets of tech companies and have the courage to face true evil in these dictatorships.

ilovecaching2• 8 years ago

I think what you’re missing is that you’re no longer the target of these companies. Second world countries like India and China are still coming online, have billions of potential users, having increasingly more wealth to spend on products, and have a different relationship with privacy and entitlement than those of us in North America and Europe. Right now the challenge is getting these people connected and dealing with the fact that they don’t have access to the best hardware. Many of them are also not past the point of requiring free service. So yeah, I think your view and predictions are comming from a narrow viewpoint that probably most people on HN see as the obvious majority when In reality you’re a shrinking user base in a changing global dynamic.

fermienrico6• 8 years ago

Unfortunately, you are correct. Even in the US, the privacy discussion has recently picked up steam. These companies and their success is a testament to how they milked the US/Europe market already in past 10-15 years. And they have more to go where India and China are massive targets for expansion.

However, I do think that the narrative is already being talked about in the US/Europe with GDPR, congressional testimony of CEOs and major focus on privacy leaks. Hopefully there will be government action.

I don't know about China, India, Africa/etc. It is absolutely sickening what Facebook tried to do in India with "Free" internet for all. Thankfully, it was shot down at the government level.

I would argue that my viewpoint is missing the extra expansion in APEC, but looking at the revenue numbers and big companies like Apple promoting privacy is an evidence of where the world is going to go.

zer0zzz2• 8 years ago

You are absolutely right.

rlnddschn• 8 years ago

Duckduckgo is an advertisement company.

needz• 8 years ago

True, but they serve up ads related to what you're searching for instead of building a profile about your demographic and interests.

John_KZ2• 8 years ago

This is a very uncomfortable truth. For now it seems like they're better than Google, but the fact is we have no way of confirming it, and no guarantee it will stay like this in the long run.

nbardy2• 8 years ago

Why is Adobe in there? Are they really an ad company?

kroltan• 8 years ago

"Eat, drink, and breathe insights with Adobe Analytics."

https://www.adobe.com/analytics/adobe-analytics.html

zer0zzz2• 8 years ago

No one cares. The entire tech industry is built on producing products people don’t need to connect you to people you don’t like. The masses of people don’t care about any of this, and that includes the people that have the luxury to spend extra money on privacy.

merpnderp• 8 years ago

That's a good point about "connect you to people you don't like." I was just thinking the other day about how the people I know in real life are likeable, but their online personalities are petty, bigoted, closed minded, and mean spirited. I don't know who's the real them, the people I know in person, or the person online. But for the most part, I wish I didn't know their online persona.

esalman5• 8 years ago

The problem is that people who understand the value of privacy are probably less than 1% of the total population. The rest don't understand or don't care and they are the target consumers of the said corporations. So simply logging out of Facebook or start buying Apple products yourself is not enough anymore. For the same reason I can't buy your prediction about next big successful companies, even if I would like to.

toomuchtodo• 8 years ago

The problem is that people who understand the value of privacy are probably less than 1% of the total population.

This is more than enough people to encourage public policy makers to make appropriate policy decisions, and failing that, run for office.

Are you a squeaky wheel? If not, make yourself one.

fx32s• 8 years ago

I feel the common rhetoric here is to dictate people what's ok and what's not under the assumption they don't understand.

Many people (including myself) are fine with the price we pay for free online services and understand the downsides. I really don't mind companies trying to show me more relevant ads by tracking and analyzing what I interact with in return for most of the products I use being free.

Obviously a large group of people does either not understand the implications or does not think they are worth the services but I think it's wrong to assume you know what's best for every user.

Aunche• 8 years ago

people who understand the value of privacy are probably less than 1% of the total population

Am I so out of touch? No it must be 99% of people who are wrong.

What exactly is the value of privacy besides the satisfaction that big tech companies aren't making as much money from me?

paulcole• 8 years ago

So charge us for your service and stop forcing me to view ads, selling off my privacy into a giant bidding war of advertisers. Fuck advertisement.

Easy to say this if you have the money to pay for it which the vast majority of Americans do not.

fermienrico6• 8 years ago

It’s sad that internet is all free but an average American is OK with spending $105/month on a cable package and STILL be targeted with ads.

What a world we live in. The problem is not that average person doesn’t have money, the problem is that these advertising giants have gotten people to expect that online services should be free (but in exchange for privacy).

EGreg• 8 years ago

The next big thing is open source infrastructure projects

https://qbix.com/blog/2017/08/20/centralization-and-open-sou...

pm90• 8 years ago

It isn't just those companies. Even retailers like Walmart, Sears etc. collect and sell your data. This is why loyalty cards provide so many discounts; its not just that they want to to be a repeat customer, but your habits are valuable for them to track and sell.

blang2• 8 years ago

Like target figuring out your daughter is pregnant: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits....

Kalium• 8 years ago

I find some of the implications here very interesting.

Apple is rapidly approaching the status of being a luxury goods brand. They certainly charge luxury goods prices. This implies that privacy is a luxury good.

That isn't wrong, in a strictly factual and financial sense. There's money to be made invading privacy that certainly can help defray device costs.

It's possible that some might opine that this might be less than fully right in an ethical sense, however...

arthurcolle2• 8 years ago

Pomme is totally lying about privacy. They are just a little more clever in how they portray themselves to the public.

Everything is networked, and anyone with LS (maybe other tools exist, but LS certainly serves my needs well) can see how many times actions are taken in the form of outgoing requests on your primary content-creation/programming device that isn't just a passive device meant to consume content, and few people have the ability to participate as independent producers of gateways. And on a cell, you have zero visibiility at all. Its a different discussion, but the last time I looked, static IP on your "home" connection - $500 one time fee, and reasonable gigabit speeds in the age of new content? $200/mo. It is a farce that in 2018 Northeastern ISPs get away with 17Mb/s. You have to pay another gatekeeper when in principle I am another node on the network and have all the computers I would possibly need to run a high-availability web service.

But back to la Pomme. They specifically push software updates to individual devices when you reach a certain expense level and cause devices to malfunction deliberately so you have to replace it. This has been documented but the IP lawyers shut you down when you start to talk about it because trade secrets.

When they see you don't have AppleCare (or AppleCare+, or AppleCare++, whatever they want to call it) on a device they will deliberately cause that device to malfunction using a device-specific OTA update that causes things like dead pixels, and other visible obstructions that make the device slightly less usable than it was before.

There is no privacy. If the above isn't the ultimate abrogation of privacy then I don't know what is. And if youre a pure Internet company, then you just don't even have to bother with all those gymnastics since the backend code is yours.

Consumers need to start demanding more visibility into what exactly a company is doing. If they knew, I'm sure they would be outraged at the constant lies they are told. The charade has reached unbelievable proportions.

throwaway5752• 8 years ago

I know that Net Neutrality is boring, but remember that when it was repealed that Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and the rest now can directly inspect your traffic and inject ads into it.

vmsp2• 8 years ago

I think you're completely wrong. You and I care about privacy and it feels like everyone does too because we're only getting signals from inside our own little tech bubble. People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that. At least not enough to stop using Facebook and whatnot. Most of my friends and acquaintances are software engineers and couldn't care less about Facebook's scandals and how it uses their data because they "use adblock, anyway". My less techy friends actually enjoy getting targeted ads since, at least, they're not completely inappropriate.

Apple is indeed invested in the "we care about your privacy" narrative. Probably not our of the goodness of their hearts. It differentiates them from the competition even more and is yet another justification for their premiums. I agree with you, they're the good guys for now.

echevil5• 8 years ago

Maybe those who care that much about privacy should use a complete different set of products. I, for one, would be more than happy to let Facebook/Google/Netflix/Yelp to use my personal data to customize their product to serve better content, better ads and better everything to me. I'm much more upset about Yelp when they keep recommending restaurants that I apparently won't care about even I've been feeding them so much information by checking into restaurants I actually like. I'd be glad if they share that information with Google/Facebook, who are much more likely to have better recommendation algorithms.

I downloaded my Facebook history when they provided such a feature, and was completely unable to find anything interesting. Why would I care if they would protect my privacy or not. If protecting privacy leads to much worse user experience, I'd rather they don't

ilovecaching2• 8 years ago

Actually, Apple collects plenty of information. They collect app usage statistics, one of the reason why they banned collecting that type of information from third party apps is because Google and Apple have monopolies over that extremely valuable data. Being able to see trends in app usage, who's getting user engagement, is huge. No, your contact details aren't that interesting to them. But your life is still interesting in figuring out how to direct their products. Don't be fooled just because they aren't sticking ads in your face.

sonnyblarney• 8 years ago

"People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that."

People do care about their privacy - absolutely - and that 'care' is increasing. That said, I definitely agree with 'bubbletink'.

"Privacy is not a product, it's a feature" is generally what I say, unless it's literally some kind of 'id securing' product you're selling. By that I mean, for a social network or any other non-security product, what users care about most is ease of use, cost, features, access to friends, hype/cool factor ... and then privacy is just one of those later tick-boxes.

So I don't even think that a 'privacy first' Social Network will really take off unless it offers something else, more salient as it's primary offer, with 'privacy' just happening to be a really nice add-on, or better yet, something inherent or existential about the product or architecture.

Also, I do think people are 'voting with their feet' as a lot of folks are switching to things like Instagram, wherein it's just some photos, the ability to message, and not a lot of the deep banter and political stuff. Just fashion, kiddies, kittens, celeb-selfies, and a lot less dialogue. This 'trend' is in a way inherently more private because it implies considerably less personal information, and considerably more default-private activity.

Also remember that Snapchat got big because of 'disappearing videos'. It wasn't just 'stories' - it was 'stories that disappear' and can't be searched! A little bit of sexting innuendo there, but an inherent 'privacy' nature to that.

In then end, we should also consider that many of us (esp. your Eng friends) are not stupid, and may just opt to use FB in a fairly minimalist fashion, i.e. not sharing too-too much.

I used FB in that manner and I make no assumptions about what they are 'learning' about me, and frankly, I don't care that much.

Apple is just not a data/social company - and so this new 'privacy trend' fell on their laps just about the same way the blockchain stuff fell on NVidia. It's a movement that is consistent with their current business model, and so it behoves them to continue in that direction and even support it.

But yes, fully agree, most of us have quite a different perspective than 'joe user' we have to consider that.

sizzle• 8 years ago

And my friends think their phone is spying on them with the built in microphone, due to ultra personalized targeted data. Once I raise their awareness of scummy advertising industry privacy practices, in laymen terms, do they understand that there is a shadow industry tracking their movements and purchase history to manipulate them into purchasing products, do they agree that this is not the future they want to live in.

In my experience, the amount of people that care are simply ignorant of what's going on in ad tech, of no fault of their own. They are tech consumers, raising families, working 9-5, living their life.

We are the tech creators, we need to be looking out for them in addition to ourselves. How can we say they don't care when they simply don't understand?

dabockster6• 8 years ago

People don't care about their privacy, it's a simple as that.

People DO care about their privacy. However, due to the market dominance of platforms like FB and others, they have no real reasonable alternatives due to lack of competition. So they have to choose between tolerating FB's practices or going with another service with worse UX and/or fewer features.

ma2rten• 8 years ago

I don't think the next big company will around user privacy. You are willing to pay a premium for privacy, but the problem is most are not. They are happy to give up their privacy if they get something for free in exchange.

Maybe that is going to change if there is more awareness around privacy, but then the big companies are going to adjust. You said we can't trust ANY advertisement company. I presume you mean companies funded by advertisement revenue. But then you actually give the counter example yourself: DuckDuckGo.

I don't think the people that work at DDG and Apple are more trustworthy, but it's in their interest to take a pro-privacy stance. It differentiates them in the market. If the public cared more about privacy and would be willing to pay for it, existing companies would care about it too and potentially change their revenue models.

dumbfounder• 8 years ago

But it comes with a camera cover so it doesn't invade your privacy!

tempodox• 8 years ago

This headline really says it all, there's not much more to add. George Orwell's Big Brother looks quaint in comparison, besides the fact that the populace consists mainly of believers and fans.

If there has ever been a case for the existence of Free Will, FB membership only supports it. Human freedom is not proven by the great and lofty choices we make, but by the truly shitty and questionable ones.

Animats3• 8 years ago

Maybe there's an opportunity here for someone to do to Facebook what Craigslist did to print newspapers. What people want is a way to keep in touch with their friends. But that's not a big revenue generator. So the "social networks" put in ads, "sponsored tweets", and other crap. Then users get fed up and leave. (Doubling down on ads as the number of users drops is called "pulling a Myspace").

A basic friends-only system isn't that expensive to run. A low-budget operation like Craigslist could do it with a modest staff. A low fee or infrequent ads could bring in enough revenue to keep it running.

downrightmike3• 8 years ago

The thing is called "personal weblogs", or "blogs" for short.

nbardy2• 8 years ago

Yea, I think what we really need is more tools for enabling build to build there own stuff.

CPLX• 8 years ago

It's really not. A configurable feed of updates from friends is, in fact, a distinct digital product. That seems self-evident to be honest.

hathawsh2• 8 years ago

Blogs are a good answer for the question "how do I post?", but not a good answer for the question "how do I read?". Most people want some kind of aggregator. There are many aggregators out there, but if the answer to the question "how do I post?" is different from the answer to the question "how do I read?", then most people won't overcome the technical friction. Facebook, Twitter, etc. solved the problem by answering both questions, along with other important questions like "how do I restrict who can read my posts?" and "how do I bring in my friends and family?".

I'd really love to see a resurgence of blogs, but any replacement for Facebook needs adequate answers to the kind of questions that blogs always left unanswered.

kardos• 8 years ago

infrequent ads could bring in enough revenue to keep it running.

I think you'd have a hard time finding people that would believe that infrequent ads would remain infrequent.

aphextron• 8 years ago

A basic friends-only system isn't that expensive to run. A low-budget operation like Craigslist could do it with a modest staff. A low fee or infrequent ads could bring in enough revenue to keep it running.

The technical aspects of such a service are trivial. People try to build new social media sites every day. The problem is building up a network effect. Getting to the scale of Facebook may not ever be possible again for a small startup because the friction for switching services is so great. Until there is some massive technological leap like the internet again, there's really nothing compelling enough for the average person to bother.

Animats3• 8 years ago

Start the same way Facebook did - with the frats at the elite colleges.

jasode• 8 years ago

A basic friends-only system isn't that expensive to run.

The expense depends on what the baseline for "basic" is.

I believe today's average consumer would want basic features to include photos and video sharing. (This consumer expectation having been conditioned by previous $0/month social networks like Facebook.) Needless to say, this requires expensive datacenters with petabytes of harddrives. Rising storage infrastructure costs and was the #1 driver of Facebook costs in 2006. It may still be today. I don't know. I believe storage is still Snapchat's biggest cost component of Google Cloud payments.

So either run a text version of a social network or put storage limits to keep the social network "cheap" to run. My guess is that the typical non-HN type of user would prefer the ads so it's still $0 per month with the ability to share lots of baby photos.

hathawsh2• 8 years ago

One idea: let people pay if they want to, move old posts and videos to Amazon Glacier or similar long-term storage, and let paid users expedite the retrieval. Matching the Glacier terms, free users have to wait 5-12 hours to see old posts and videos, while paid users can see them in 1-5 minutes.

tomashertus• 8 years ago

Who said that the nextgen soc platform will need persistent storage? Just remove everything once it's viewed and leverage the clients for storage.

Animats3• 8 years ago

Good point.

Now a "Freemium" app might work. Text is free. Pictures up to a limit are free. A few seconds of video with an expiration time is free. More pictures, longer video, and long term storage all cost.

Fortnite is "freemium", and bringing in over $1BN a year without ads.

netcan• 8 years ago

Yup. And if you get enough users to make it onto Zuck's radar, he'll buy you for unicorn money and you'll be rich! Hey.. whatsapp?

falcolas2• 8 years ago

The most basic "friends" system is, IMO, an authenticated mailing list with P2P sharing for pictures and movies. Not a lot of money to be made there at all, though it fits the bills for privacy and decentralization.

gibsonf1• 8 years ago

It would be great to have the Solid version of facebook where users control their own data with a great UI that accesses the data only as allowed by the users.

stinos2• 8 years ago

What people want is a way to keep in touch with their friends

Well, that, and the other thing FB got really really good at: I hardly use FB for friends. I use it to track all sports/music/scenes I'm interested in. It has become my number one source for tracking events. There's, as far as I know, nothing which comes closes in aggregating all of that.

s09dfhks• 8 years ago

Isnt this what Mastodon is trying to be?

shmerl2• 8 years ago

Don't use Facebook, as simple as that. Prefer decentralized social networks if you need them, ones that aren't built around profiting on your profile.

seppin• 8 years ago

decentralized social networks

I'm sorry but what would the point of this be? A social network is only as useful as it's centralization.

shmerl2• 8 years ago

Nope, decentralized doesn't mean disconnected. It means it's not owned or controlled by any one entity and runs on many independent but connected nodes.

ddtaylor• 8 years ago

It appears the Facebook Apology Tour continues.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-mark-zuckerber...

moocowtruck• 8 years ago

$COMPANY Isn't Sorry, it Just wants your Money; whats the difference?

fortythirteen• 8 years ago

While the general conclusion is correct, this angst-ridden blog post posing as a news article wouldn't get past the most generous editor a few decades ago. It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some.

truculent• 8 years ago

It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some. I think it's fine to differentiate between their fluff and opinion pieces, and some genuinely excellent investigative reporting. Why do we need to simplify to "legitimate" or "not legitimate"?

dabockster6• 8 years ago

It's sad that Buzzfeed News is considered a legitimate source by some.

Everyone has a different definition of "legitimate source" these days.

0x54D5• 8 years ago

I deleted my Instagram and Facebook two weeks ago after being a member since Facebook's .EDU only days.

I urge men and women of good conscious to do the same.

crunchlibrarian• 8 years ago

Facebook is the most consistent company I've ever encountered. They have never really changed and have always hit the same notes over and over.

Remember the beacon fiasco? That was the start of the pattern, the fact that they were so baffled by everyone's reaction was so amazing to me that was the month I deleted my account and never looked back. But they haven't changed one bit since 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon

GrumpyGrandpa• 8 years ago

There are many people who will still use all the stuff Facebook releases, even though they will know about the data collection things. The world is becoming a creepy place to live, with zero anonymity

Facebook Isn’t Sorry, It Just Wants Your Data

Related Stories