

Why Facebook’s Political Moves Should Terrify Us All - jdrucker
http://soshable.com/why-facebooks-political-moves-should-terrify-us-all/

======
mycroftiv
Ugg, what a silly article. I am a non-user of facebook and a dedicated civil
libertarian, and this article is ridiculous speculation. Undoubtedly Facebook
wants connections and influence in government, all big corporations do. The
connection to the Trusted Identities in Cyberspace plans is purely imaginary.
With so many real vital issues of online privacy and security being contested
right now, hypothetical conspiracy theories like this are an unnecessary
distraction.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, I'm actually more ok with Facebook lobbying than I am with 90% of the
lobbying that already happens. At least their product doesn't kill people or
cause a lot of pollution.

------
koko775
I think that this article is a bit short-sighted. Facebook has a massive,
massive network. I should know - I briefly interned on their TechOps team (and
switched teams partway through). Their slice of the internet is truly massive,
and worldwide. The amount of bandwidth consumed by the Photos product alone,
much less the rest of Facebook's properties, is gargantuan.

Now take a look back and notice just how deeply the telephone companies
influence politics. Do I even need to provide examples? Think about Net
Neutrality. Facebook doesn't just want it, it depends on it to keep its costs
down and its site fast.

Explain to me, how can they battle this without having the ear of Washington?
It's a good strategic move, and I expect that far more of their clout will be
focused on maintaining the status quo than federally mandating Facebook use.
As an organization with a great deal of hackers (as in hacker news 'hacker'),
I think that enforcing a global ID would face major resistance even within the
company. Far more plausible is that they're looking for influence to keep the
internet open, as that is in their best interests.

~~~
perlgeek
> Think about Net Neutrality. Facebook doesn't just want it, it depends on it
> to keep its costs down and its site fast.

When they are really profitable, they can afford to pay some extra cost to
make sure that facebook is well reachable everywhere, while the rest of the
Internet is slow. (Exaggerated, yes).

So maybe they have some motivation to enforce net neutrality now, but will
they stall have it in five years?

~~~
joebadmo
Exactly. In fact, I'd say as an entrenched incumbent, they have every reason
now to _oppose_ net neutrality. They can afford to make deals with the telcos
and pay more for the bandwidth in order to keep the upstart competition out of
the race.

~~~
koko775
Not seeing it. They're so entrenched that slower access only penalizes the
user experience. ISPs peer with Facebook because there's so much bandwidth
both up and down that it's in their best interest, too. Giving ISPs more
leverage to charge only makes it easier for a worse product to succeed on a
basis other than merit.

------
msy
While I get it I don't really see the big fuss. Facebook knows as much as you
choose to tell it. I choose to tell it nothing. Yes you can infer soft
networks from the email address books they've harvested etcetc but really
there's nothing in those that can't pieced together if someone wants to
anyway. As far as I'm concerned Facebook's a busted flush unless you want to
advertise to a slightly below average income demographic with too much time to
play mundane online games and from a professional perspective a FB message or
email address is about as serious as a hotmail.com one. The inevitable social
network market fragmentation is already underway, I'm excited to see what it
brings.

~~~
nsfmc
facebook also knows as much as your 'friends' choose to tell it about _you_
unless you're vigilant and remove their posts to your wall or untag yourself
and so forth.

~~~
ori_b
You think that removes it from their database? They've already said that they
don't delete the data, they just hide it.

~~~
blasdel
How else would they keep people from re-tagging you?

------
eklovlfjkeos
Several commenters on soshable.com and HN say something along the lines of "no
biggie - I can just delete my profile when FB becomes a problem."

But here's the thing: You probably can't delete your profile. As far as I
remember, Facebook didn't even have a deletion feature in the beginning, only
a deactivation feature.

Now there's a deletion feature, but can you be absolutely sure that FB doesn't
save your info even if they tell you your profile has been deleted?

Think I'm paranoid? Think again: Several times I've tried deleting status
updates, and while I get a deletion confirmation, some or all of the "deleted"
status messages show up again some time later.

~~~
reemrevnivek
FB became a problem for me some time ago, and I soft-deleted (deactivated) my
account. There is a deletion feature now.

There's a big difference between a bug in the deletion of status updates
_right now_ , and permanent deletion which takes a couple days. Tape backups
will always be around, though.

~~~
eklovlfjkeos
Sure, but my point is that you can't know for sure whether Facebook will
actually delete your profile even if they say they have.

"They trust me - dumb fucks" - Mark Zuckerberg

------
JonnieCache
I am reassured by facebook's enormous, gigantic attack surface. I am sure that
anonymous would be able to wreak absolute ungodly havoc upon it if they
decided to.

------
mncolinlee
Facebook has stated on numerous occasions that they want to be a central ID
authority, so the article is less speculation than simply extending the
Facebook game plan to the next rung. I currently recommend my site users sign
in through Facebook due to the depth of their instant personalization
features, but may offer Twitter or other access as well in order to calm users
who may rightfully fear a company that does not respect anonymous speech. Even
though I like Facebook's features and respect their technology, I must hear my
customers concerns first.

------
jsz0
I can't say it's among my top concerns in the world right now. The quest for
political influence isn't automatically a crime. Facebook obviously has a big
interest in FCC policy for example. If they choose to opt out of the political
games it puts them at a disadvantage especially when big telecom is one of the
most powerful lobbies in the country. Ironically when it comes to issues like
net neutrality Facebook is actually one of the few big tech companies that
doesn't have any major partnerships with carriers to consider. I find the
whole national-ID angle implausible but let's say it was true. Do we feel
better if Google or Microsoft, both with considerable Washington connections,
are the ones lobbying for a national-ID jackpot? In a strange counterintuitive
way more competition in the high-tech influence peddling business is probably
a good thing. Better than just conceding policy influence to Microsoft, Google
and the other big established players isn't it? I sort of feel like Americans
have been deeply naive about how much influence big corporations have and now
they're confronted with it on a daily basis and it's a big revelation? It's
basically always been this way, or worse, and we managed. No need to get
terrified over it now.

------
TorbjornLunde
I don't see how this makes Facebook worse than other corporations. Isn't
trying to influence the goverment (and probably partially succeeding in it)
the norm?

~~~
MediaBehavior
And does not that 'norm' worry you at all?

The Supreme Court has declared that corporations have many of the same rights
as individuals. We fleshly individuals, however, do not have the same _power_
as mega-corporations, nor does our 'free speech' have the same same power as
'free speech' promulgated/backed by a $100B corporation, nor will my campaign
contribution have the influence as a corporation's (left-wing, right-wing,
whatever). Is it inappropriate to be worried?

~~~
iwwr
As a corporation becomes bigger, it becomes a target. If they don't have a
lobby team in Washington, they will just be pounded on by other political
factors (including other corporations) until they do. See the case of
Microsoft, which until the (in)famous DoJ investigation had no lobby team.
Afterwards, donations started streaming and their lawyers set up offices in
Washington.

------
vessenes
The slightly less Orwellian version than imagined here seems pretty likely to
me. If there ever is an online national ID system, I'll bet 100 to 1 that
you'll be able to port your facebook identity directly across to it.

That said, there's an interesting Silicon Valley goes to Washington --
courtesy of its Harvard roots -- story here -- it may be that Zuck is just
that much more forward thinking than the rest of the nerds, and wants in on
the Washington game in a proactive way, rather than as a mission of last
resort when dragged there by some other group, a-la the MPAA.

That would, in my mind, bookend the 'geeks' era of technology companies -- 30
years or so from long-haired off the grid types hacking Apple II software in
shacks outside of Big Sur to 20-something billionaires hiring up Washington
talent.

If I understand my major industrial history correctly, that's about right,
maybe a bit slower than the oil industry. Look for Biotech to get smart on
this in the next 10 or 15 years?

------
alecco
It's creepy how the Facebook does the Enron moves. And with Goldman Sachs.

------
arthurgibson
Isn't this the natural progression for a big data company these days? ...
At&t, search company, im sure the list grows.

Fortunately I left Facebook b/c all the high school kids that I had nothing in
common with kept cluttering my wall and friend requests queue.

------
tintin
What a crap. _"It will prove to be deadly."_ but no answer is given. If you
are terrified of Facebook, just stop using it.

Maybe an upvoter can explain the upvote?

~~~
dexen
From a cursory read, I reckon it's about the ``National Internet ID''. You
know how governments tend to botch big IT projects? Now imagine being forced
to use one such insecure `solution' for every act of communication over
internet.

~~~
tintin
The thing is, I can't imagine that. My grandma never touched a computer. But
she still is part of our society.

~~~
Herwig
A national internet ID is ahead of our time. Until our grandparents are ready
to commit to such a thing, (maybe even the 40+ generation) something like it
wont happen.

~~~
mhb
Make it a requirement for social security payments. Game over.

------
rospaya
Yet it could collapse overnight.

Facebook is doing all it can to lock users in, but in the end everything
revolves around a single user just saying that he/she doesn't care anymore and
is out.

If the circle of 10 of my closest friends leave Facebook, I would probably
leave as well. Many great services have fallen before Facebook.

------
Du4No
I know this is old, but it still may be relevant:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B37wW9CGWyY&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B37wW9CGWyY&feature=related)

------
stretchwithme
I know plenty of tyrants are annoyed with Facebook.

~~~
trotsky
Yup, the ones that don't align with US interests (anymore).

~~~
Herwig
Is Gaddafi on Facebook?

~~~
trotsky
Tripoli sure was.

------
zethraeus
this article and this comment thread are both infuriatingly conspiratorial.

Facebook may become a defacto standard for an internet ID but its power lies
in having people willingly share information about their lives. This would
cease immediately if the US government mandated it as a form of ID etc. Which
kind of contradicts the company's goals... no?

------
phlux
It started innocently enough. Everyone is on it. Everyone. In the more than 20
years since it was founded - and now - daily life just could not be managed
without it. Sure, it started innocently enough. Connect with your friends,
post your pics, keep up with the fam. Yeah, that was then.

It wasn't too long before they started adding features. Adding value they
called it. Extending your circle. Enabling you they'd say. Yeah, in the same
way a spiders web is beautiful. The pattern and symmetry, glistening like
shiny gossamer art. Its beauty pulls you in - you don't realize at first as
you touch it, that it sticks. No, more than sticks - you become _imbued_ with
it. The more you move it wraps around you, encasing you... entombing you. For
the data-mining black widow to come and suck the marketable value right out of
you, your connections... every aspect of your life is now a product.

Classified, organized, tagged, sorted, tracked, pegged, followed, poked,
monetized, labeled... owned is what you are. A commodity. A small spec among
3.5 billion in the user base of the book.

That's what it was these days... just simply 'the book'.

Everyone knows - everyone is aware. They are all in the book. Not even a page,
or a word either... more like a letter. A single letter. An iconographic
digital hologram of the total sum of your parts - all wrapped up real nice in
a uniform singular profitable little package called your _user profile_.
Displayed and viewed and consumed and tracked billions of times over. With
more than thirty trillion page views per month, the cancerous blue and white
digital encapsulation of the human soul was now blazoned across innumerable
screens as nearly half the worlds population interacted on the book - more
than 20% of the worlds population on the book at _any given moment_.

A study, one of the countless to be sure, said that now more than 90% of real
human interactions occurred through the book. What does that even mean
anymore... real? Real human interactions? Through the book? how is that even
possible.

It was no wonder that in the last few years the backlash has switched to
resisting this unexpected strangle-hold on the human condition. Most never saw
it coming... happily going along with every new feature update, privacy
change, "enhancement". MZ was repeating himself a lot these days... except his
frame of reference had gotten bigger. Where years ago the book was likened to
that which only came along to change humans interactions every 100 years...
now his statements were 10 fold. MZ thinks of himself as the embodiment of the
singularity... whatever that means. Some fucking fantasy of a long dead
cybervisionary that couldn't recognize the makings of our current prison I'm
sure. Fuck him.

Looking around looks a lot more like binary slavery than any form of
singularity. None of our old problems have been solved - in fact the book has
only made things worse. After it became a "platform for governance and
outreach" we, people like - those who _really_ see, knew. We knew what this
meant. Game fucking over.

This era of hyper connectivity and ultra social awareness was supposed to
usher in some sort of Utopian orgasm -- one in which MZ would be carried on
the shoulders of the masses to stand next to fantastical human saviors like
Jesus. Fictional allusions to stellar bodies be damned!

The only problem is that most of the world is too busy. Feeding their
attention into the black hole of the book to notice... or care I guess.

With ubiquitous access thanks to the assimilation of the largest global fiber
network a few years ago, the book was now able to offer complete and total
"free" access via the acquired goog-net.

Years ago, when Athena rolled out - it was a huge success. Welcomed into every
neighborhood - direct, very high speed fiber access in every home was quickly
made into a "right". The model was seen as our manifest destiny, held in a
62-micron translucent hair that fed us with more 1' and 0's to each person in
a single day than the entire digital output of the globe in 1999.

Such an umbilical cannot be bad right!

The only problem is we misjudged the direction of the flow!

Now, with goog-net reaching everywhere, but the book being the only lens into
the tubes -- our minds are warped. We are a most technically advanced - yet
wholly dependant child-like civilization.

A mutant.

If its not on the platform. Not "in the book" they say -- how can it be
trusted - how could it succeed? How can you expect to be relevant?

HOW CAN IT NOT BE RELEVANT!

Slaves! All of them!

This is why we act! This is what is needed. Who are we? Who the fuck were we?
Not this! Surely not this. It is time....

We take action now. Rewrite this so called book.

We will not forgive. We will not forget!

~~~
bodski
Talking of books, I think we should all (re)read Brunner's "The Shockwave
Rider" [1], inspiring and prophetic. The book that coined the term 'computer
worm', maybe parts of the 'remedy' are written within...

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider>

~~~
ebiester
Reread all of Brunner, for that matter. Perhaps "The Sheep Look Up?" -- and we
all thought that President Prexy was referring to Reagan!

------
api
.. and this is different from what Rupert Murdoch has been doing for the last
30 years, or what Seymour Hersh did before that, because... ?

------
phlux
we are in for a really rude awakening when it comes to the political pull a
site like facebook can really have.

Here we have a company with a very very large cross section of just about
every culture and country on earth. It has massive amounts of personal.
intimate. detailed data on its users, their relationships, their interests and
activities.

We have a CEO who is young, idealistic, ego-centric and in certain ways,
impressionable. Not in a petty sense - but in a way where providing the
opportunity to feel as though he really is changing the world, he will assume
that he is -- and for the better. The problem is that, I believe, he (and
facebook) will be manipulated.

Regardless of Mark's ideals and lofty goals - politics is politics. It is a
system of control in its basest form. Facebook is the perfect venn between
social utility and totalitarian encroachment.

Sadly - the social utility for its users currently outweighs its encroachment
and it will be ratcheted further into a position where we cannot separate our
daily activities from it.

~~~
forensic
Mark Zuckerberg is the #1 target for manipulation of every intelligence agency
and influence centre on earth.

His 26 year old mind is up against the intelligence apparatus of multiple
nation states that want to use his possessions.

He has no chance. All of his meetings with various power brokers and law
enforcement representatives are well known. The fight is over. He's a
unwitting puppet. All of the information that reaches him is carefully
monitored by tens if not hundreds of professionals in the business of
information trafficking and control.

Something with the value of Facebook either survives through rigid ideological
principles upheld by a mesh of ideologues, or it falls to outside influence.

I think Google's built in iconoclastic values gave it some level of
inoculation against government influence.

But Facebook has no values aside from power and money. Zuck is the classic
power monger geek, a true successor to Bill Gates, except Bill Gates was not
nearly as much of an obvious target because the stakes were not understood at
the time.

~~~
btam
Note that these information agencies that you refer to are in competition.
That makes manipulating Zuckerburg a lot more difficult, doesn't it?

Also, his '26 year old mind' is not alone. He's not the only guy that wants to
support his ideals.

I'm not saying that he can resist manipulation, but I don't think it's as easy
as the parent of my comment makes it seem at all. If anything, it's a war
_for_ Zuck; it's not a war _on_ Zuck.

For example, the US and say, North Korea are not going to be working together
for control of Zuckerburg; they're going to be competing for it.

~~~
isleyaardvark
"Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask. I have over
4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS. People just submitted it. I don't know
why. They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks."

So when did Zuckerberg develop these "lofty goals" and "ideals"?

~~~
phlux
To be clear, when I said "Regardless of Mark's ideals and lofty goals -
politics is politics." -- I was in no way implying that he had lofty goals and
ideals that _were good_... quite to the contrary.

I do not and shall not ever have an account on the book for many reasons - my
distrust of the founder and company ethos are but just two...

~~~
eliasmacpherson
What's to stop an acquaintance of yours impersonating you?

------
jonah

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
    
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
    
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
    
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.
    

\--Martin Niemöller

