Leaving FB.

[taz]

True. There is metadata attached to your account every time you do anything. But that metadata is not shared or sold outside facebook, it is simply used to direct ads to you. Advertisers do not "know" you are visiting atlanta per se, but your account might be added to the subset of accounts targeted by any advertiser wishing to reach people visiting xxx hotel atlanta. Like Zuckerberg keeps repeating in vain, the details matter.

"metadata is not shared or sold outside facebook"

How do you know this? Because Facebook says it or because Zuckerberg said it in a congressional hearing?

If there is money to be made with this data, then it has or will be sold. <- Now that is an opinion, but in my life I've never seen anything to contradict it.

I still remember CEOs of tobacco companies testifying under oath that cigarettes did NOT cause cancer. I don't believe Zuckerberg was under oath but I don't really believe it matters either way. It's not like lying under oath in Congressional hearings has had any repercussions (much less prosecuted) in recent years.

FWIW, I still have a FB account that I use regularly although I post less frequently. While I don't mind my 'posts', i.e. words being kept in perpetuity, I'd like to be able to truly delete visual images (photos and video) and not have given license for FB to own them. Guess I should have read that user agreement more closely. But the reality is, usage of many of these social media platforms is so ubiquitous that for many people it's not optional - just like software applications. And like the shrink wrap licenses, the terms are onerous to the user/purchaser but we don't really have a choice but to accept if we want to function in our daily lives/routines.

[steve garro]

You know what I miss the most about FB? The photos of fish + happy dogs and whale sharks.

.

Dude.

You're sharing my data!


- Garro.

[j44ke]

I think Toots is in currently in the field researching how best to convert this forum to one about fish, happy dogs and whale sharks.

[bcm119]

"metadata is not shared or sold outside facebook"

How do you know this? Because Facebook says it or because Zuckerberg said it in a congressional hearing?

If there is money to be made with this data, then it has or will be sold. <- Now that is an opinion, but in my life I've never seen anything to contradict it.

I still remember CEOs of tobacco companies testifying under oath that cigarettes did NOT cause cancer. I don't believe Zuckerberg was under oath but I don't really believe it matters either way. It's not like lying under oath in Congressional hearings has had any repercussions (much less prosecuted) in recent years.

FWIW, I still have a FB account that I use regularly although I post less frequently. While I don't mind my 'posts', i.e. words being kept in perpetuity, I'd like to be able to truly delete visual images (photos and video) and not have given license for FB to own them. Guess I should have read that user agreement more closely. But the reality is, usage of many of these social media platforms is so ubiquitous that for many people it's not optional - just like software applications. And like the shrink wrap licenses, the terms are onerous to the user/purchaser but we don't really have a choice but to accept if we want to function in our daily lives/routines.

Money *is* being made with this data. The data itself is their greatest proprietary business asset, why would they sell it? They are using the data to create the most granular, targeted advertising platform with the largest audience in the world. The data itself is their greatest asset, it would not be in their interest to give it away for any price. Their product is very simple-- an advertising platform, but their (your) data is what makes it so valuable. They have no incentive to sell the data and risk someone else building a competing platform. And perhaps ironically, the most mundane data about you-- the metadata, as opposed to shared content data-- is the stuff like which hotel in Atlanta you're staying in.

To understand how valuable their (your) data is to them, consider that they build records of people who don't have a facebook account and visit a public facebook page. They do this not because they are spying on you, but to ensure that no individual can visit thousands of facebook pages and build their own database of public accounts. They do not want anyone to have their greatest asset-- your data.

[taz]

Money *is* being made with this data. The data itself is their greatest proprietary business asset, why would they sell it? They are using the data to create the most granular, targeted advertising platform with the largest audience in the world. The data itself is their greatest asset, it would not be in their interest to give it away for any price. Their product is very simple-- an advertising platform, but their (your) data is what makes it so valuable. They have no incentive to sell the data and risk someone else building a competing platform. And perhaps ironically, the most mundane data about you-- the metadata, as opposed to shared content data-- is the stuff like which hotel in Atlanta you're staying in.

To understand how valuable their (your) data is to them, consider that they build records of people who don't have a facebook account and visit a public facebook page. They do this not because they are spying on you, but to ensure that no individual can visit thousands of facebook pages and build their own database of public accounts. They do not want anyone to have their greatest asset-- your data.

"The data itself is their greatest proprietary business asset, why would they sell it? ... it would not be in their interest to give it away for any price. ... They have no incentive to sell the data and risk someone else building a competing platform."

You say this like no company has ever sold or shared an important proprietary business asset. It's quite possible that a potential customer for this 'asset' has a non-competitive use for it and FB mitigates/eliminates the risk of possible competition through contractual terms (and a huge $$ war chest available for litigation purposes if the terms were breached).

Before data became the important proprietary business asset, it was hardware and software architecture (see 1980s). Some companies held on to theirs, others sold, yet others granted limited licenses. FB maybe the most well known and have the largest dataset of this type, but they are not the only players in the demographic data collection field.

[bcm119]

And perhaps ironically, the most mundane data about you-- the metadata, as opposed to shared content data-- is the stuff like which hotel in Atlanta you're staying in.

edit to correct: "And perhaps ironically, their most valuable data is the most mundane data about you-- the metadata, as opposed to shared content data-- is the stuff like which hotel in Atlanta you're staying in."

[bcm119]

"The data itself is their greatest proprietary business asset, why would they sell it? ... it would not be in their interest to give it away for any price. ... They have no incentive to sell the data and risk someone else building a competing platform."

You say this like no company has ever sold or shared an important proprietary business asset. It's quite possible that a potential customer for this 'asset' has a non-competitive use for it and FB mitigates/eliminates the risk of possible competition through contractual terms (and a huge $$ war chest available for litigation purposes if the terms were breached).

Before data became the important proprietary business asset, it was hardware and software architecture (see 1980s). Some companies held on to theirs, others sold, yet others granted limited licenses. FB maybe the most well known and have the largest dataset of this type, but they are not the only players in the demographic data collection field.

True, but I think that's the sort of thing that goes in much more mature industries. That, along with the fact that building public trust has been Zuckerberg's greatest challenge, leads me to believe he isn't going to breach his own terms of use and then big-money-lawyer his way out of it later. That just seems like about the stupidest decision he could make, and I don't think he's stupid. Annoying, arrogant, but not stupid.

[sk_tle]

I laugh at people announcing on twitter or any other social media network they are leaving facebook after that cambridge analytica affair. This is so naïve.

[rwsaunders]

Have some fun and throw Zuckerberg and Bezos off of your digital scent.

These Tools Help You Mislead The Algorithms That Track You On Social M

[bigbill]

IMO, the data collected by apps in FB is much like the phone polling conducted by pollsters calling home phone numbers. Many educated professionals no longer have home phones, and many don't ever click on the apps in FB that are used to establish profiles. The data collected isn't really a true indicator of the leanings of a population, just a way to identify who to target with advertising. I checked my settings again last night to look for ads and there was some weird stuff that was linked to me, all of it harmless except for "returned from travel three weeks ago". Because I posted some photos from AZ and NM, FB noted that I was away from home. Don't like that.

[ides1056]

I never look at the advertising anyway. It's all but invisible to me.

[Octave]

As much as I have a distaste for Zuck and the whole enterprise, it is astonishing to me how little people care about their privacy. It rings of the old argument "I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I care if they spy on me?" To which my response is always two-fold: first, you're not doing anything wrong in the current eyes - should they decide tomorrow that all vegetarians are to be summarily executed, I'd prefer that my information is kept to myself. An absurd example of course, but regime change happens quickly and we should all know that where we stand today may not be where we stand tomorrow. Second, it's a matter of principles. I have a right to privacy, which is why I choose not to use services that openly strip me of that. If you opt to use facebook, or any other social media, you are opting to give your information to the owners of that enterprise. That's the deal. The fact that people use a free service and then are shocked when they get these advertisements absolutely baffles me.

The ignorance of the committee grilling him was also pretty shocking. One of the early questions about targeted advertising that went on for WAY too long hinged on the simplest point that the committee member simply didn't understand: yes, you will have to pay for a service that is free of advertisements. Facebook, just like all other social media, television, the radio... uses advertising as a source of income. Why is it so hard to understand that if you want an ad-free experience you will have to pay for it? I nearly stopped watching after that - these committees need to sit down with people who actually understand the internet before these sessions.

[monadnocky]

Similarly, I am amazed when I witness the gnashing of the teeth that occurs whenever there is any hint of privacy intrusion by the government compared to the enthusiastic willingness to hand private information over to corporations. Perhaps a generalization, but my perception is that this is much more common in younger generations. I think it really points to the ongoing process of the corporatization of the country.

For example - I know someone whose life is pretty much marijuana-based. Everything is about marijuana, all the time, including (from what I've heard, since, save for about three months in 2008, I've never participated) his Facebook page. But he will go absolutely apoplectic when he discusses what he perceives as the privacy intrusion of police when it comes to drug enforcement. Not that I particularly disagree with him on the latter point, but come on man.....

And yeah there were some real palm-to-the-face moments in that hearing. And Zuck could have done his homework better.

[bigbill]

My son heads off to the Naval Academy in June, before he goes, he's required to delete his social media history. He's never had a FB account (they're for old people, like parents) but he has instagram and twitter. He can continue to use both, but has to start with a clean slate. I've always been careful about what I post on FB and now that I'm in the job market again, I'm cautious. I have a Catholic Priest as a friend so I consider that he will see anything I post, that makes me think.

[Corso]

I don’t have an opinion on Zuckerberg-could care less. Facebook does what I’ve always figured they do-from day one.

Why wasn’t he sworn in? Isn’t that a basic in such matters? So testimony is “sworn” testimony, he can lie his backside off. I guess he has in a few instances.

BUT once again, watching the Committee try to grill him and “catch” him reminds me of how out of touch some of these elected officials are. Both sides of the aisle. Simply ridiculous and they should be embarrassed.

But they are not embarrassed. The skin of a politician is like a gator.

The more I watch these things, the sillier they become.

[classtimesailer]

I listened to bits and pieces of the Q and A. All of the questions AND all of the answers presume that we have no choice but to use FB and therefore it must be managed/regulated like a utility/public good. Privacy? wtf is that? FB and other inter web weavers know more about most teenagers than their parents do. Therefore, we should regulate FB so that parents don't have to worry about not knowing what their kids are up to?

Where do I sign up for indentured servitude on the Lunar colony. Get me out of here!

[ides1056]

When I hear "smart speaker" or smart anything, my skin crawls. I'm with stupid.

[Saab2000]

When I hear "smart speaker" or smart anything, my skin crawls. I'm with stupid.

Exactly. How many folks use these Alexa things or the Apple equivalent? I can't wrap my head around them, though I suppose the existence of AI and total connectedness is inevitable. Skynet isn't science fiction, it's practically already here.

[taz]

Exactly. How many folks use these Alexa things or the Apple equivalent? I can't wrap my head around them, though I suppose the existence of AI and total connectedness is inevitable. Skynet isn't science fiction, it's practically already here.

If you have an iPhone and it's plugged in (charging), Siri is listening. I don't know if it's only the local OS monitoring sound or if it's an open internet connection, but either way it's an open mic listening in.

[Bob Ross]

Pancakes.jpg