In the wake of Facebook's breach of (more than) 50 million accounts, we're starting to get some explanations, and they are hair-raising. No group i...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Facebook is really annoying. Someone should invent a social media with privacy into consideration. Not little nit-wit Facebook privacy.
Or maybe delete all social medias. And live on messengers instead? IDK.
I think the opposite would be better for society, a social media site that functions as a journal and posts go public after 10 years or so. The problem with Facebook is that it erodes privacy and monetizes people's attention while running advertising that is designed to alter people's behavior, and that it fundamentally alters the incentives of networking to benefit itself, amd that it essentially locks away people's thoughts forever after they die because it replaces journals or correspondence. Something that doesn't do any of those things would be great, and I reject the idea that sites like Facebook or Twitter can't exist without VC and ads. Maybe they wouldn't make all the money in the world as they try to now, but that's not a reason to make the world worse.
I'm sure it's possible to attract enough (no-strings-attached) funding for development, but there are two real problems:
1) How to make the platform 10x more addictive so people are actually on it instead of facebook
2) Operational costs. It could be distributed if people still used good christian desktop PCs, but with most of the population being on their low-battery phones and expensive mobile connections? :(
(I don't usually phrase comments this way, but I really just have such disparate thoughts on this. Sorry it's a little weird.)
1a) Much like the goal of outrunning a bear with a partner is not outrunning the bear, it's outrunning the partner, the goal of another social network is not (or should not) be to surpass Facebook. It is to become sustainable in proportion to their funds.
1b) I prefer not to intentionally design things to be addictive. That's abusive of people's trust.
2) We never talk about Facebook or Twitter abandoning targeted advertising, and I get why. They're so entrenched in those business models. However, if they were the ones to adopt more humane funding models, then they would still be the top dog in their corner of social media. Moreover, if the argument is that they would have to shut down if they don't sell people's data to advertisers--that ordinary users would not crowdsource money to keep it afloat--then, by their otherwise pseudo-capitalistic logic, doesn't that mean their users don't want them around enough and that they should go out of business? I don't think they would have to go out of business; they just wouldn't be able to generate as much revenue and would have to cut back staff/C-suite pay down to what they should have been in the first place, which is not a service problem. We could force the issue by banning targeted advertising, but I don't think that's likely to happen because of their incredible government lobbying.
Facebook is a public company. The goal of a public company is to maximise profit. There's no way they can leave this business model and not get sued by investors. They could change the business model by going private but then Facebook would need to buy back its stock shares, which is highly unlikely.
Musk wanted to take Tesla private last month, it would have cost 71 billion dollars at the time. Facebook is worth 474 billion dollars :-D
Probably, but I think that the more privacy issues they have, the more likely they are going to regulate it.
1a) Social networks have incredibly strong network effects. Unless they are intentionally niche platforms and not general purpose communication tools, it's either all or nothing.
1b) If a private company could have a product that's addictive enough to get a market share, they could then go on to affect great positive change. It's possible to sugar coat our words and say things like "engaging", but at the end of the day we need to acknowledge that everything currently in use is winning because it is ridiculously addictive, and isn't just a "frictionless tool that allows us to fulfil our needs and then gets out of the way".
2) I am strongly opposed to any sort of government or regulation, practically and morally, I firmly believe that it is always infinitely harmful.
Forwarding a 'log me in' help link does seem like authorizing the recipient to log in to your account 🙄 the security step lies in receiving the link itself.
Preventing users from taking actions that hurt themselves is also a part of security. If you can't think of a reasonable situation wherein a user would want to forward an automatic login, then why give them the option to shoot themselves in the foot and then blame them for firing?
They aren't giving them that option. That is out of Facebook's scope. They sent a password recovery e-mail. If you received it and use your e-mail client to forward it to someone else and they get into your account, hey that's on you buddy.
>They aren't giving them that option.
>If you [do that option], hey that's on you buddy.
That's a contradictory, unreasonably user-hostile perspective.
Probably true since I never even heard of it. XD
A friend of mine reported a way to see the friends list of people that have hidden their friends list and facebook claimed that this wasn't a bug (but still fixed it a few months later) and did not give him any bounty either.
Tim Berners-Lee just announced a project to empower people with their own data: medium.com/@timberners_lee/one-sma...
The home page shows the total number of hearts, unicorns, amd bookmarks.
Very much related:
Clicking a Facebook link logs me into another person's account
Peter Kim Frank
My reply from Facebook, for what it's worth:
that reminds me. few days ago we were revisiting some old bugs in our project and one of them was "looking at a picture logs me in as administrator"