
Big brother is here, and his name is Facebook - ahiknsr
https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2017/08/11/big-brother-name-facebook/
======
Deimorz
Personally, I think Google is just as terrifying, possibly more.

As an example, just take a fairly normal life situation like going out for
dinner with some friends, and think about how much of it goes "through"
Google:

\---

One of your friends sends an email to 6 others, to ask if everyone's free for
dinner on Friday. 5 of the 7 people involved use gmail or a google apps
address.

You've never heard of the restaurant they're suggesting, so you search for it
on Google to see what kind of food it is.

You click to the restaurant's site. It uses Google Analytics, so even though
you're no longer on Google, it still knows the exact path you take through the
site while you're "outside".

You decide the restaurant looks good, and enter the dinner into Google
Calendar.

On Friday, you use Google Maps to get to the restaurant, so Google knows
exactly where you were before, what time you left, and the route you took.
While you're driving, maybe you send a couple of text messages using the
Google voice assistant.

At the restaurant, it turns out your friend Doug is there, even though he
wasn't part of the emails. During dinner, you're all trying to remember the
name of that movie where Shaq plays a genie, so both you and Doug grab your
phones and google for phrases like "shaq movie genie" at about the same time.
Even though Doug wasn't included in any of the planning, Google now knows that
you're almost certainly together, and what you're talking about.

You finish your meal and pay via the restaurant's Square system, which emails
the receipt to your gmail address. Google now knows exactly what you ate, and
how much you paid for it.

You use Google Maps again when leaving, telling Google exactly how long you
stayed at the restaurant and where you're going next.

\---

I didn't even push that very far. There are multiple other things I could have
easily added, and you can do this with almost any situation. It's quite insane
how much Google knows about what people are doing all the time, and the level
of detail they can get by combining these things.

~~~
dannysu
Facebook is like a Casino. They'll try to maneuver to keep you engaged and
contain you in their bubble. However, if you're able to leave or cut your
usage, they extend no influence whatsoever. (Don't have mobile apps installed,
block their trackers, don't use Facebook login, etc) There are lots of ways to
communicate outside of Facebook, including other messaging apps that help you
form social networks outside of it. My extended family use Line for
communication.

Google on the other hand is like the road. You can't avoid the road.

~~~
beagle3
> However, if you're able to leave or cut your usage, they extend no influence
> whatsoever.

My friends often upload pictures of me, tagged with GPS coordinates and user;
And even though most have stopped tagging me (as I have asked), Facebook often
does offer them to tag me, which means that Facebook has enough pictures of me
to identify me in random pictures (even though I never uploaded a single one
myself).

Google collects information from users themselves, and have some info from
people mailing them (if you are not on google yourself, it's likely more than
half your emails are still coming or going to a google server).

But Facebook has co-opted your friends and family to spy on you, all day every
day. Very much big brother.

~~~
saurik
When you upload photos to Facebook as part of an album, my experience is it
doesn't even ask: it just goes ahead and tags people it recognizes, and it
even sends them a push notification that you did that even before you click
"save" on the album (it even attempts to live synchronize the text you are
typing as the album description, which is insane).

~~~
jaflo
What do you mean by live synchronizing the description?

~~~
saurik
Like, every few seconds the description of the in-progress album is
synchronized to the live album you don't even realize is live yet.

~~~
pyman
Facebook is worst than the KGB

------
cisanti
The authoritarian regimes' secret police would be delighted at something like
this. People actually (well, not all of us) give them information themselves,
and those who don't, sure do get tracked across the web.

"Thoughts control" is very much a real problem, as the Google Memo scandal
showed us. People dug out the irrelevant donation of Brendan Eich. Think about
the power FB has, they know exactly who is the enemy of the state using the
word from good old Soviet Union where I happened to born in.

People on the left dangerously remind me the fanatic pioneers, who only think
one way is right and preach false tolerance. Some are even so stupid that they
hold a hammer and sickle in one hand and rainbow flag in another. Knowing the
possibility of the power and the capabilities these people would have if in
power. I would say we live in dangerous times.

~~~
Micoloth
I more than agree with you. The only thing, why do you assume that only people
"on the left" could be intrested in using these tools? Sure it's people "on
the left" that are creating them and control them now, and yet thought control
is DEFINITELY not a thing right parties have ever had problems using lol. Am I
wrong?

~~~
cisanti
Absolutely, the reason I wrote left is that for the past decade it's the left
I'm afraid of. Of course, the right can use them for evil too. But seeing how
American media behaves, scandals around people who don't agree with the left
narrative, is very much frightening and reminds me the Soviet past. When I
call it out, people say something along the lines "freedom of speech is not
freedom from consequences", after social and regular media (that is left,
let's face it) doxx and destroy a person.

I know plenty of people who are afraid to speak out. Even having a little bit
different opinion can destroy your career. But you have family and kids. What
is more important?

The Google Memo guy is a brilliant example. It doesn't matter what he wrote,
people wanted to destroy him and they did. No freedom from consequences...

We had a similar saying over here too. It meant a crime against the
state/society. That is a reason my grandmother was not able to go to the
university. Her father used to own a small two-man brick factory and by being
a capitalist he committed a crime.

Your universities are filled with ignorant, blinded radical people, who don't
teach thinking but dogmas. Looks like the KGB work started to take effect a
little too late.[0]

People reading it I'm a republican nutjob, but believe me, having once lived
in that kind of society they are pretty close to the truth on that. Wrong on
many other things.

[0]:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0)

~~~
SubiculumCode
I'm generally liberal, but am a strong believer that much more power needs to
be vested locally. There are a number of problems in the US that stem from
power concentration in the hands of 1%ers that live far away. With Trump, more
liberals are also starting to think in this direction. Concentrated power
scares them.

Concentration of power into international corporations that know everything
about everyone is dangerous also, not least because of the potential for
blackmail against any that oppose some action those corporations wish to take.

That said, while some of your criticisms of the left ring true, you seem quite
unaware of similar authoritarian monoculture tendencies in the right wing.

~~~
adventured
> With Trump, more liberals are also starting to think in this direction.
> Concentrated power scares them

Hilariously predictably, it strictly only scares them when it's not their
person in power. We get to watch this rotating clown show every few years,
where the left suddenly wakes up again and pretends to be against
concentration of power or various rights abuses (Clinton to Bush, Obama to
Trump). When it was Obama abusing his power, they were as silent as could be
(except for a few fringe people like John Cusack or Cindy Sheehan, who both
got ostracized for speaking out - they were consistent in their beliefs - once
it was a liberal in office).

If it were Hillary in there abusing power right now, they'd be just as silent
as they were a year ago. There are more people willing to speak up against
abuses of civil liberties on the left than there are on the right, it's still
always a small bunch when you've got a Democrat in the Presidency (people like
Ron Wyden).

------
neuro_imager
"Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn't watching. He's singing
and dancing. He's pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother’s busy holding
your attention every moment you're awake. He's making sure you're always
distracted. He's making sure you're fully absorbed. He's making sure your
imagination withers. Until it's as useful as your appendix. He's making sure
your attention is always filled. And this being fed, it's worse than being
watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what's
in your mind. With everyone's imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a
threat to the world." Chuck Palahniuk

~~~
the8472
We're getting a mix of 1984 and a brave new world.

~~~
quakeguy
Just a quick overview over both works here

[https://i.imgur.com/acumO.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/acumO.jpg)

and i dont think we end up and a mix of both, but something else, more
disturbing even. Think CGI + Fakenews + Propaganda. Uncanny.

~~~
raybb
Amusing Ourselves to Death is a fantastic book. I first read it years ago and
it changed the way I view a lot of things (specifically TV). Maybe it's time
to give it a read again.

------
intopieces
Big Brother is here, but his name is not Facebook. It's WeChat.

[https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000004574648/chi...](https://www.nytimes.com/video/technology/100000004574648/china-
internet-wechat.html)

WeChat has the tracking capability that Facebook could only dream of, and it
does not even hide it.

~~~
giancarlostoro
[https://chinachannel.co/who-really-owns-wechat-wechat-
essent...](https://chinachannel.co/who-really-owns-wechat-wechat-essential-
tips/)

The company that owns WeChat also owns QQ which is much more popular it seems.

~~~
yeukhon
QQ has been around for so long, it isn't going to fade away. But WeChat is the
de facto messenger among the many Chinese-speaking users, especially those
living in oversea. Obviously not everyone who can speak Chinese use Wechat. In
HK, WhatsApp is probably the most popular messenger.

------
Joeri
May 26 2018 is going to be a very interesting day. The GDPR will trigger
across Europe, and Facebook will become legally compelled wrt any European
citizen to share everything they know about them, discard data not relevant to
delivering the Facebook service, and allow users to correct any of the data,
or remove all of it. It will be fascinating to see what exactly they know
about me. In theory, not that much, since I barely engage with Facebook at
all, but in practice I suspect quite a lot.

~~~
snarf21
One thing people are oblivious about is they say "Facebook is awful, I only
use Instagram and WhatsApp" and forget that the whole network is insanely
large and growing. People lose sight that FB and Google account for 99%+ of
all online advertising in the US. Social has become such an echo chamber and
so manipulative.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
99% sounded like a made-up statistic, so I looked it up [1].

What do you know, it's more like 60% combined. What's the purpose of throwing
out numbers like this? It only hurts whatever point you're trying to make.

(Edited for tone)

1\. [http://www.adweek.com/digital/u-s-digital-advertising-
will-m...](http://www.adweek.com/digital/u-s-digital-advertising-will-
make-83-billion-this-year-says-emarketer/)

~~~
snarf21
I apologize, I misremembered the statistic from an article I read months ago.
They only account for 99%+ of the _growth_ in the last year, according to this
article.

[[http://fortune.com/2017/04/26/google-facebook-digital-
ads/](http://fortune.com/2017/04/26/google-facebook-digital-ads/)]

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Even that source is a real stretch to support your point. Yes, some analyst
thinks it's close to 100%, but sounds like most experts don't agree.

------
Animats
I just can't see running the Facebook app. Facebook on the desktop, sure, but
why on a phone? Other than checking in once a day or so to see what my friends
are doing, Facebook has nothing I want.

I don't use Gmail. I have a Google account, but it's only used for updating
browser add-ons. Last login was over a year ago. Mail comes from a IMAP
server. Android's standard mail client does IMAP just fine. All my desktops
and laptops use the same IMAP server, so it all syncs.

I don't have much Google stuff from my Android phone. When I bought the phone,
uninitialized, it asked for a Google login. I clicked "later", and then
deleted Google First-Time Login so that wouldn't come up again. After a while,
voice dialing broke due to some update at Google, so I deleted more Google
services. Location services come from ZANavi. (That uses unassisted GPS, so it
takes a while to get a fix.)

~~~
fnovd
>I just can't see running the Facebook app. Facebook on the desktop, sure, but
why on a phone? Other than checking in once a day or so to see what my friends
are doing, Facebook has nothing I want.

This is like saying, "I just don't understand binge drinking. Red wine with
dinner, sure, but a fifth of vodka in a night? I enjoy a light buzz, I have no
need to get wasted."

Some people are simply more susceptible to this addiction than others. This
product is much more prevalent and addiction is less stigmatized and arguably
more profitable. Motives have to be questioned.

------
darrmit
I don't find Facebook useful for much and find that it brings the worst out in
people, therefore I don't use it.

I do find Google useful but choose to use it very sparingly - no search, no
mail, no maps. I do use Drive, Docs, and Photos (for now).

The problem I'm running into is some of Google's services are so exceptional
compared to alternatives that it's becoming problematic to use alternatives.
Maps is an example of this. In some ways Chrome is an example of this (when
considering it as a platform/OS instead of just a browser).

I get the irony that their services are exceptional _because_ of the data they
collect, but that's sort of irrelevant.

But at the end of the day, I ask myself how much this matters in the absence
of a VPN at home and on mobile when ISPs and cell providers are partnering up
with advertisers and government agencies.

~~~
earenndil
> I do use Drive, Docs, and Photos (for now).

Docs is the most egregious item on this list. Just use libreoffice. And the
syncing capability? Kill two birds with one stone, host your own cloud storage
(raspberry pi hooked up to a 1tb hdd) sync your documents AND your photos to
it.

~~~
darrmit
I already have Syncthing running, just haven't moved off to it.

The biggest offender is Photos. I just haven't found a good self-hosted photo
solution.

~~~
earenndil
What photo solution do you need? Or rather, what do you want for photo storage
apart from file storage?

------
msoad
I heard form someone at Facebook that they use location data to figure out who
you are with.

If a group of friends go to a restaurant and nobody checks in Facebook will
know you are together because all of you opened one of their apps in the same
time frame and location.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Which is why phone meta data is a big deal. Once you can cross reference
numbers, locations, etc. patterns will emerge.

For example, you meet with someone every Saturday. At some point your
colocation isn't a coinsidence, it's a relationship of some sort. Gather
enough data and they'll know more about you than you do.

~~~
qrbLPHiKpiux
Match.com has this feature now called "missed opportunities." Shows who you
crossed paths with.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Right. And people are happy to be tracked. SMH

------
wonder_er
I can't quite believe the argument that Facebook is Big Brother, because the
first suggestion the author suggests is "stop using Facebook".

In 1984, I believe the most compelling attribute of "Big Brother" was that
he/it could _not_ be willfully turned off.

So, for this to be an appropriate analogy, Facebook would need to be able to
legally compel you to have the app on your phone, and if you illegally removed
the app/ignored FB, you could be thrown into jail.

Facebook is huge, but all the big tech companies cannot actually imprison you.

Seems like a useful distinction.

~~~
jessewmc
Would you not consider shadow profiles a form of imprisonment? Perhaps not
quite as strong as voluntarily giving heaps of information, but still a rich
source of data on people who do not use Facebook.

~~~
jsemrau
About a month ago I started to receive Facebook notifications from people that
I know. I am not on Facebook.

~~~
NDT
How did you receive these notifications? Couldn't it be friends
emailing/inviting you to join?

~~~
jsemrau
Nope it's XYZ added a picture or read XYZ's new comment

------
smokeyj
Didn't Zuck assist Pakistan in enforcing blasphemy laws resulting in a mans
death sentence?

Here's a prediction. Zuck will be the face of the Democratic party in the next
12 years.

~~~
seasonalgrit
Backgound:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14559267](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14559267)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
asia-39300270](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39300270)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40246754](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40246754)

------
hutzlibu
I wonder how many people who write about big brother and 1984, have actually
read the book.

Because I live a life without facebook.

In 1984 there was no opt-out - full violent dominant controll, all the time.
Also over the thoughts.

We are maybe beeing spied on a lot, by many different organizations - but I am
not going to torture/brainwashed camp, because I THINK xxx is bad. I can also
say it.

So continue to criticize bad things, but maybe with a little bit less
alarmism/hystery ... thanks.

~~~
graeme
But how much does facebook know abiut you?

* photos amd comtact info uploaded by friends * tracking scripts all over the web * any datasets they may purchase to make correlations

I'llbet they have a lot more on you than you think.

~~~
hutzlibu
"I'llbet they have a lot more on you than you think."

No, I do know they know a lot about me ... so what? The do not have a army to
take me in, if I do not think or act like they say I should.

There might be a point, if I cannot have friends or find a job without a fb
profile - and for some people this might be the felt truth allready - and this
is bad, yes. But first of all, I think atm everyone has a choice - and
secondly, big brother is still something completely different ... that was my
point.

------
yhn4433
... says a media outlet with live trackers for connect.facebook.com and
graph.facebook.com, amoung others.

~~~
jdormit
And a warning that says, "we use tracking cookies and sell your browsing data
to advertisers"!

------
partiallypro
Google knows far far more about you than Facebook. Facebook knows the
information you want public or general information like usage. Google knows
your darkest secrets. Sure, Facebook tracking pixels might track some of your
shopping habits too; but Google has analytics everywhere, Adwords linked up,
your search history, your browser history, your location history etc.

~~~
salsadip
I disagree. If you use WhatsApp, Facebook knows more personal things about you
than google. Things you only talk about to your best friend, fights you have
with your significant other, how you behave in group chats etc - it can derive
your emotional state and use that. Facebook conducted studies on (real) users
on how different posts and the order of posts affects them emotionally. I
don't trust services which try to exploit my emotional well-being in order to
be more engaging/addictive.

------
innocentoldguy
This article states all the reasons I don't use the Facebook app, the
Messenger app, nor do I ever use Facebook as an authentication mechanism. Why
stick a "kick me" sign on your own back?

------
sametmax
Did you just wake up and realize it ? Cause it's something a lot of people
have been saying for years now.

------
rogerthis
To put things in a different perspective, imagine how much information about a
farmer had an ancient imperor? How fast or effectively he could move the
feelings of the people? Or order his army to attack or change tactics? Or how
many months or years a pope from Middle Age would take to spread some dogma to
all faithful?

When I relate these questions to what we have today I can't help but think
that if we do not pay attention we'll head to a world with less and less
freedom.

------
benevol
On one side, I'm happy to see that people slowly start to understand the
situation.

On the other side, I'm kind of shocked it took so long. The way these
companies were going to take control over us was so obvious about 15 years
ago. A lot of damage is done, now.

------
nigrioid
All of the spooky privacy issues are bad enough, but what really makes me sad
is the continuous movement away from things you can control and run yourself
(e.g., mail and web servers) toward closed, opaque, proprietary stuff like
Facebook.

------
newscracker
> In most cases, granting permission is an all-or-nothing affair. This means
> you cannot cherry-pick the permissions to grant or deny when installing an
> app. You either accept or decline.

I wish the author had spent a few lines to expand on this one so people would
understand it better. This is a huge problem for those using older Android
phones (which is a huge number worldwide) with Android 5 and below. With
Android 6 (Marshmallow) and beyond, one can control specific permissions post
app install (whereas the "all or nothing at installation" model applies to
lower versions). AFAIK, this is also a problem on Windows phones, but that's
quite a small percentage comparatively.

Those using iOS devices haven't had this issue for a long time because app
permissions are granted or denied individually at runtime (this has also
improved over time) and not during installation.

> The choices here involve four things:

>...

> Switch to secured and private decentralized social networks

The author mentions Nexus Social, but it still seems like it'll have
decentralized storage only later next year. As of now, I don't know of any
Facebook or Google+ replacements that are decentralized and help
control/preserve privacy. There are simpler platforms to replace Twitter, like
Mastodon. But a text-only platform will always remain a niche as far as social
networking is concerned. We live in the age of memes, live videos and clips.

I personally would love to see a decentralized, feature rich and easy to use
platform that preserves and allows control of privacy by the users (from
others and the network), but at this point in time I don't have much hope for
the next several years.

~~~
mejin
> With Android 6 (Marshmallow) and beyond, one can control specific
> permissions post app install

There are a lot of apps that will simply refuse to open if you do not grant
them permission for a list of unrelated permission.

~~~
CaptSpify
I've also found that the permissions aren't nearly granular enough. Should
Google Maps be allowed to use my GPS when it's open? Sure, if I allow it.

But there's no way for me to allow it _only_ when Maps is open.

------
throw2016
Every problem is an opportunity and potential solution. The current
centralization will bring with it all the problems of centralization.
Individuals can't simply depend on goodwill. That never ends well. Power is
arbitrary, concentrates itself and seeks its own expansion making individuals
irrelevant.

The bigger problem is the potential solution. What seems to happen in the
market economy is once any potential 'solution' takes off, the money and greed
involved also do, and the solution becomes the exact same problem it was
attempting to solve. Or it was just 2 powerful vested interests fighting all
along masquerading as change.

There is plenty of wealth floating around, resources and power are
increasingly centralized, the barriers to entry are getting higher
exponentially, distract yourself, avoid it, accept it or vie for change, but
most change-agents have been betrayers, merely replacing one set with another,
hence the devil you know.

This is not to advocate helplessness but to think carefully about potential
solutions and not blindly support self serving interests promoting change.

------
vayun
The article is pure FUD spreading.

"potentially being able to eavesdrop on our conversations", so now any app
which has access to microphone "may be listening"?

So it uses data which you are willingly share with it to "serve better ads".
Where is a problem with that? Does the author prefer worse ads?

~~~
intopieces
>Where is a problem with that? Does the author prefer worse ads?

I certainly do. I do not want ads at all, so I prefer them to be as least
relevant to my interests as possible so the chances of them distracting me
from what I was doing -- on the rare chance that my ad blocker fails -- are
minimized.

I also don't like seeing ads about things I just looked at at Amazon on other
websites. It gives me the impression that this new website I'm looking at
knows what I'm shopping for.

------
wbillingsley
Twitter is more concerning, as it has connected society's social enforcers
(those who are concerned with which views "have no place in our society") with
media, government, employers, etc.

In terms of privacy, people have never been that concerned with "who's
listening" so long as the scope of use is limited (eg, security cameras in
carparks are seen as a sign of safety, not espionage, and people will happily
mouth off loudly to their friends on balconies, untroubled by the ordinary
passer by who might look on and scowl at the trash they might be talking).

It's not the overhearing and data collection part of zersetzung that's the
most problematic -- it's the army of volunteers ready to take part in public
denunciation and social undermining that people grow to fear.

~~~
mamon
On the other hand, Twitter is less and less relevant, on it's way to
bankruptcy.

------
Micoloth
Even tho i'll always remind that any reasoning that links this with a left or
right political orientation is just dumb-

Yes, this is deeply and dramatically scary

------
amingilani
Hrm. This article is functionally suspiciously like a banner-ad for the Nexus
social network's ICO.

I'm not saying that it may have intended to be one, or that it isn't about
Facebook taking over our lives. But it starts with how bad our privacy is,
tells us how we can take control over messaging and our mic, and then ends
with a switching to Nexus, and whose ICO starts in three days. Functionally
speaking, it has the same impact as a sponsored article written for the ICO.

I mean, I use Telegram myself, but it doesn't replace Messenger for me. While
we're on the subject, Whatsapp also provides end-to-end encryption, is owned
by Facebook and is definitely a Telegram competitor.

------
williamle8300
Don't forget about Google. It's less of a salient problem... but all the data
collection is created to be monetized. In a few years, we'll end up seeing
really interesting ways that data will be sold (not just for advertisers).

------
SubiculumCode
"Passively Listening"

I will say this. The frequency of occasions is increasing where I've mentioned
to my wife or son a product or service out of the blue only get served an ad
with that product within the next 24 hours. Sure, it could be coincidence. I
could be that the product was suggested subliminally to me via a campaign,
etc. But some of these things are very specialized (plastic mold press), and
not related to what I'm typically interested.

What I've not done is stage experiments where I randomly select products,
intentionally mention said product near our family's cell phones, and make
note of ads targeted at me in the next 24 hours.

~~~
dTal
While I suspect that something more interesting is going on there than either
coincidence or secret audio recordings - Baader-Meinhof, or very intelligent
guesses from the ad placement AI, or some combination thereof - I strongly
urge you to do the experiment you describe.

------
carl-erwin
The funny thing is the "share on facebook" button at the end of the article.

------
yotamoron
I deleted my fb account more then 2 years ago. Life is so much better now.

------
narrator
I post all my daily thoughts and pictures and lots of personal details of my
day to day activities TO MY OWN PRIVATE MASTODON SERVER. This is hosted on a
VPS. I give accounts to my close friends and it gives me no impulse to use
traditional social media for other than professional purposes. If friends want
to know what is the latest on my life, they can just log in and read my
activity feed.

My default search is duckduckgo and I'll use Google if I'm not getting good
results.

I haven't really found a good alternative to Gmail though.

~~~
Casseres
> I haven't really found a good alternative to Gmail though.

Have you looked into FastMail?

~~~
qrbLPHiKpiux
Seconded. I use the POP service on one laptop only.

------
pcunite
Big Brother's name is actually IoT.

------
kristianc
> By running its platform on top of blockchain technology, Nexus integrates
> social networking, crowdfunding, and even e-commerce features embedded.
> Nexus is aiming to “eliminate all invasion of privacy that large corporation
> are currently performing” according to its founder, Jade Mulholland.

So the big plan to avoid Facebook's privacy creep is to put everything on an
immutable, publicly accessible record which you don't control? Okay.

~~~
machineman44
I know right... Everywhere I turn, I hear people preaching about "blockchain
technology" and it's ability to "increase privacy" ... I die a little inside
every time...

------
danirod
Regarding the 'always listening' concerns, on Android 6.0 and above it is
possible to grant granular permissions for resources such as microphone or
location to applications. Even on applications that use an older SDK where
granular permissions are not a thing, you can still disable those permissions
after installing the application by tweaking the System Settings.

By looking at my current permission settings, only the Camera and the Phone
app have permission to use my microphone. I closed my Facebook account a while
ago but I use WhatsApp, owned by Facebook. Given that I don't send voice notes
or make in-app calls, there is no need for it having access to my microphone.
Same with location -- no need.

------
chrischen
In these articles there are a lot of statements where Fb denies doing certain
things specifically, such as storing audio recordings when the app is used to
tag TV shows.

I’m generally curious about if companies usually lie about practices like
this, especially since company policy can change internally at any time
without oversight. What happens if they are caught lying? Doesn’t seem to be
breaking the law in any way.

It’s scary to think that while Facebook reassures everyone they aren’t
listening to conversations or aren’t storing audio in a way that’s connected
to the harvested user, they really have no obligation to wihhold that promise
and even if they don’t they don’t even have to tell us!

~~~
Atheros
> storing audio recordings when the app is used to tag TV shows.

And if they were truly not storing audio recordings but rather _building a
spectrogram of the audio and uploading that_ then their lawyers would argue
that they were telling the truth. Even though the effect is the same.

------
sonnhy
I've read nothing new from this article, but I've never heard of that app RYL
and the concept that you can occupy the mic with one app at the time.

Apart from the fact that that app will be listening all your day and that will
make your phone containing sensible information anyway, I could be leaked as
easily as that information is also stored as compressed as possible, for easy
and non noticeable way in your internet footprint. Yet you can trust an app
who's not open source, if your read their manifesto.

I wonder if this article was all about RYL anyway.

------
nibstwo
Brave New World not 1984.

~~~
unicornporn
+1

[http://vision360design.com/1984-george-orwell-vs-brave-
new-w...](http://vision360design.com/1984-george-orwell-vs-brave-new-world/)

------
goalieca
I've closed my Facebook account but as the article mentions, delete the app
and use the browser interface if you must. Your battery will also thank you.

~~~
RobertoG
If you close your account, do they delete the information that they have about
you? if not, is there any way to force them legally?

It seems to me that would be a "right to be forgotten" that makes sense
instead of the current interpretation.

([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten))

~~~
megous
One way I know they don't delete stuff is that I cleared my entire history
using delete buttons. Unfriended everyone, removed all the events, etc. The
account looked clean. I also cleaned the ad categories or how they call it.
It's interests they gather from your activity that they use to serve you ads.

When I came back a few days later my ad interests were again filled with stuff
obviously deduced from my posts that I deleted. Things I no longer care about,
but posted in 2010, and obviously not visited recently, so they have no way of
knowing what those interests are.

Facebook is engaging in scummy activities obviously. They call most of those
removal buttons "Delete", not "Hide". They just lie left and right. Data take
out should instead be called data poop out, because that's the quality of the
format you get of the data you provided them over the years.

Actually that may be one of the less legal things they do. If you explicitly
ask them to delete particular photo or whatever, they should delete it and not
keep it to themselves. There may be for example issue with copyright. What if
I posted something I don't have rights to and want to remove it? They
obviously don't have right to it either, because I couldn't have given it to
them.

~~~
jdormit
> That may be one of the less legal things they do

Actually, it's in the TOS [0] - although it says you legally own content that
you post, FB retains IP rights to your photos and videos. These rights end
when you delete the content, _unless the content has been shared with other
users_. This means, in practice, that they have IP rights in perpetuity to
everything you post publically!

Now, the TOS does claim that deleted content is deleted "in a manner similar
to emptying the recycling bin on a computer". However, "deleted content may
persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time". Make of that what
you will - I read it as a legal back door that lets them keep your deleted
posts around for as long as they want.

[0] [https://m.facebook.com/terms.php](https://m.facebook.com/terms.php)

------
RomanPushkin
More info about FB:
[https://stallman.org/facebook.html](https://stallman.org/facebook.html)

------
danblick
"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.
But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their
autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their
oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." \-
Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death

------
squarefoot
After visiting a family of friends of mine a few weeks ago and noticing how
much they're active on FB, and sadly how many bullshit they take for true and
discuss there, from chemtrails to infinite energy etc., I never regretted
refusing to be a part of that human stupidity collector called Facebook. Not
for me, definitely.

------
basicplus2
I use the Facebook app, but it is in a separate phone used for nothing else,
and lives permanently on a desk at home.

------
andreasgonewild
There are plenty of superior alternatives; but this one is mine, and free; and
secure:

[https://github.com/andreas-gone-wild/snackis](https://github.com/andreas-
gone-wild/snackis)

Whatever you do, opt out before it's too late...

------
dzink
Is it legal to announce a funding event like this ICO in the press? Especially
in a PR piece?

------
SHAKEDECADE
Startpage for google results and eu.ixquick.com for non google/yahoo/bing
results. All with a happy meal toy of being able to use their proxy to view
sites and images. DDG has bangs via !sp & !ix but DDG uses GET instead of POsT

------
kushagraasati
[https://www.emitpost.com](https://www.emitpost.com)

------
jkoll
This is an ad for an ICO.

------
mattbgates
All hail the Overlord Zuckerberg!

------
megamindbrian
Isn't Facebook run by Mormons now anyways?

[https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_586848...](https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58684845e4b0eb586489cb9e/amp)

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
Where do you get Mormons out of that?

------
zapperdapper
I don't do any anti-social media. Period. I wish more people would follow suit
but they really seem addicted to it.

Will either FaceAche or Gobble still exist in ten years time anyway? Will any
of us?

