
FFFG: Freedom from Facebook and Google - lowmemcpu
https://www.freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com/
======
McDev
Is the Privacy Policy link broken? It just links to
[https://www.economicliberties.us](https://www.economicliberties.us)

If you then navigate to the privacy policy on that site, it contains stuff
like:

"For example, we may use remarketing with Google Analytics or other
remarketing tools to advertise online. This enables third-party vendors,
including Google, to show our ads on sites across the Internet...."

~~~
fatnoah
Looking at the site source, it uses both React (Facebook, complete with
copyright notice), Google Analytics, Google CDN for jQuery, Google Fonts, and
Youtube iframe for some reason.

Perhaps these are ironic inclusions meant to highlight how hard it is to live
without Facebook and Google.

~~~
froasty
It's an election year. Breaking up tech monopolies polled well among
millennials. This is a phishing net for contact information.

------
rehman
I hope this gains traction. Everyone is so busy in their survival journey, no
one wants to take that big step. Google provides a comfort zone that we don't
wanna leave.

------
ketanmaheshwari
How do they expect others to get free from FB and Google when they themselves
are on Facebook and Instagram?

~~~
president
It shows how powerful these platforms have come to be that even when you are
protesting their monopolies/censorship, that you still have to rely on them to
get the word across.

~~~
chiefofgxbxl
> that you still have to rely on them to get the word across

The website doesn't have to rely on React, Google analytics & CDN, et al. This
is a simple website that could have been written in plain HTML and CSS, with
server-side analytics if desired.

------
caetris1
Personal opinion here. If you trace the funding of anything on the internet,
you usually get to the bottom of things. Here is an article that was published
on WIRED that traces those roots. [https://www.wired.com/story/freedom-from-
facebook-open-marke...](https://www.wired.com/story/freedom-from-facebook-
open-markets-institute/)

I think what the site says is basically true, but also I think it's vaguely
disingenuous.

------
blakesterz
The more I think about this, the less I lump Google and Facebook together when
I talk about privacy. Maybe it's just because I don't use Facebook all that
much, but I don't consider them to be exactly equal, and suggesting that
everyone not use both at the same time no longer works for me. I don't
disagree with some or even much of what's on this site, but Google has built
some amazing things that are widely used. I can't think of much to say about
Facebook in that way. Google has mail and docs and maps and all the chat
things and analytics and so on. Really powerful impressive things that are
really useful to many people, and certainly useful for Google in obvious ways.
Facebook has... Facebook. Maybe I'm missing other things that it does?

~~~
skinnymuch
Adding this because the more I think about it, the more Amazon is used
possibly far more by myself and my friends. Amazon’s own as network is on pace
possibly to be third with a huge gap after the big two. Amazon has other
ambitions as well. Shouldn’t we try to curb usage before things get too bad?

I have always thought in my mind for my self I need to lessen Google in my
life and then Amazon. As I explain below FB isn’t an issue for me personally
though of course for others it is.

— To the point of FB vs Google:

Facebook has more for sure and I bring up the 3 of their big 4 properties
below __. But point stands to me.

I block major FB domains and sub domains along with FB and it’s properties on
my desktop and jailbroken iPad (hosts file) where I spend the majority of my
time.

I think I don’t block certain google things because it gets hard to navigate
with certain sub domains of theirs blocked if you’re not on a crusade which
I’m not. Also their CDN is pretty widely used for fonts scripts etc.

I do have occasional use of FB Messenger, Whatsapp, and IG __which all happen
on my iPhone. So they are getting more stuff prob than I think.

 __i haven’t kept up with numbers as recently but IG has ~1.2B users, FBM has
~1.5B, Whatsapp a bit more than that. FB with 2.2B or so. I think those are
monthly active users. With tons of overlaps of course.

I am assuming Facebook won’t give their number of unique people overall using
their services as people here and elsewhere would decry that as a huge
invasion even though we know they know some estimate :p.

~~~
blakesterz
Interesting point on Amazon, I bet you're right, I use Amazon extensively.

~~~
skinnymuch
Thanks. I was rabbit holing procrastinating yesterday. Just look at how long
the OP post of mine is hah.

But I am wondering how Amazon is surging to a distant 3rd place for ads. I
think one reason might be that usually Microsoft (which I would think is
mostly MSN, any other major site they own, and Bing) and LinkedIn are
separated?

I know Amazon has sponsored items in multiple places around Amazon.com. Amazon
is big enough that those placements alone could put them as the distant third.
But I wonder if they do anything outside that.

Different note. Yahoo failed miserably at trying to compete with Google
Adsense. I’m a bit surprised there’s never been a team up effort among some
combo of the remaining players, or Facebook themselves trying to go at it.
Adsense makes much less money than AdWords. Not sure how much less it does on
top of splitting the money with the websites, but Facebook has enough ads and
tech most likely. Facebook’s rep is pretty bad compared to other top tech
companies, but Adsense has grumbling going on and Amazon pulled a lot of their
affiliate stuff with covid19 giving them more orders than they can deal with.

This would be a great time for Facebook or some combo like Facebook and
Microsoft making competitors to major Google services. Namely Adsense and
Analytics. Though Analytics probably isn’t worth it for Microsoft since user
data isn’t as prized for them and the anti-Facebook sentiment amongst vocal
Internet crowd could be enough to not make even attempting that worth it. Even
though I have a hard time seeing how the current, what, 90% market share
Google Analytics and 80%+ Adsense have for their markets would be any worse
off with an equally user privacy offensive company (FB) joining the fray and
taking 1/4 or so of the market over time.

At the very least an FB[/Msft] Adsense alternative would immediately be a
possible boon for people banned from Adsense or shaken up by Adsense issues.
And Amazon affiliate things never coming back to how they were.

Welp. Shit. This is super long too

------
HiddenCanary
How is giving you our data going to solve this?

~~~
shadowgovt
They'll put it in a Google spreadsheet to track... Oops.

------
gittes
quad9.net DNS servers are blocking freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com domain...
Interesting.

[https://www.quad9.net/result/?url=freedomfromfacebookandgoog...](https://www.quad9.net/result/?url=freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com)

[https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/url/freedomfromfacebook...](https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/url/freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com)

Might be a false positive probably because bad stuff came from the same subnet
of the web server; might be just a byproduct of shared hosting

------
jnaddef
Did someone understand how they plan on doing so?

On first look it reminded me of conservative posts with a lot of outrage but
no solution.

------
errantmind
I don't think the solution is to break them up, but instead to give people
back control of their data

~~~
paulgb
What would this look like in practice?

~~~
errantmind
A willingness to totally destroy the business model of companies that rely on
targeted advertising. Off the top of my head this could be done by extending
something that looks a lot like HIPAA to all personal data collection and
sharing, where repeated violations are enough to put even the largest
companies out of business. Basically, a big middle finger to anyone involved
in data collection / advertising

------
mceachen
1) the chance that the US government is going to break up Google or Facebook
is nil.

2) if you actually care about privacy, stop feeding those beast with your
data. Self-host what you can, use alternative services for the rest.

(That said, I still use g-suite for email and shared docs).

------
iamstupidsimple
> promote dangerous content

I'm definitely biased here, but "dangerous" content does not exist -- only
dangerous people. But then again, I get called a "free speech extremist"
nowadays so what do I know?

~~~
Barrin92
not sure what this is supposed to be other than a platitude. So dangerous
weapons and dangerous viruses don't exist either?

I think free speech extremism is apt as a description here because a sort of
worldview where only humans have agency is extremely mistaken.

~~~
iamstupidsimple
Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes
from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally agreed
it's better than tyranny.

~~~
ardy42
> Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes
> from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally
> agreed it's better than tyranny.

That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers
taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school.

Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and
working to eliminate or minimize their effects.

~~~
kerkeslager
> > Freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes
> from spreading of "fake news" or whatever because society has generally
> agreed it's better than tyranny.

> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if
> teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school.

Can we agree there are difference between _allowing_ someone to spread
conspiracy theories _in public_ , and _paying_ them to spread conspiracy
theories _in our schools_? I've italicized the differences.

You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a
straw man.

~~~
ardy42
>> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if
teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school.

> You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a
> straw man.

Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free.
We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake
news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than
tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech
rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students'
critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be
inadequate?

> Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread
> conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories
> in our schools?

Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people
are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean
society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to
retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist
teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free
speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be
tolerated.

~~~
kerkeslager
> Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of
> a conspiracy theorist teacher?

We shouldn't. They're welcome to say whatever they want.

We're not obligated, however, to pay them to say it. Free speech never
obligates anyone to do anything. It merely obligates us to _not_ do one thing:
prevent others from saying things.

> > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread
> conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories
> in our schools?

> Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people
> are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean
> the government cannot change laws and practices that make that too easy.

No, that's not the difference, and no, you weren't alluding to anything I
said.

In one case you're passively allowing them to say what they want. In the other
case you're actively paying the to say what they want. You're in favor of not
passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to
say things.

But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively paying
people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look stupid,
when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.

~~~
ardy42
> You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for
> passively allowing people to say things.

You're misreading my position, and kinda missing the point I was trying to
make to fixate on little part of the example I used.

> But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively
> paying people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look
> stupid, when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.

No, I'm not. I may have been doing a bad job, but the general idea I was
trying to get at was that you can judge a tree by its fruit, and that bad
(sometimes poison) fruit exists. If we find ourselves with trees that produce
too much bad fruit, changes can and should be made to improve the situation,
and that doesn't mean bad fruit will be banned entirely or only one kind will
be allowed. Maybe you cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller
trees, etc. But I think it's unreasonable to say that too much bad fruit (and
a few poisonings) are just the cost of having fruit.

There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in a
society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results may
be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a mistake to
assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."

~~~
kerkeslager
"Argument from metaphor" is a logical fallacy. Even if what you say about
trees and fruit is true, it doesn't prove anything about people and words,
because people aren't trees and words aren't fruit.

People who say bad things aren't poisonous fruit trees. A poisonous fruit tree
always produces the same fruit because _genetics_ , but people can and do
change their minds and say different things over time. And when you say you
want to "cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees" I'm
going to assume you _aren 't_ suggesting we start killing people, but I really
don't know what you _are_ suggesting.

> There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in
> a society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results
> may be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a
> mistake to assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."

It's true that there's more than one free speech system, but let's be clear:
any system which determines what people are allowed to say, or who is allowed
to speak based on what they say, _isn 't a free speech system_.

The core problem is that if you start determining what people are allowed to
say and what people aren't allowed to say, you have to put someone in charge
of enforcing that. In the context of social media censorship, that's literally
a proposal that we put amoral corporations in charge of what people are and
aren't allowed to say. I don't trust Facebook with that power; I don't trust
_anyone_ with that power. In forums that I moderated back in the day, I didn't
trust _myself_ with that power.

For example, let's talk about racist speech. I think we both agree that we
don't want people to say racist things. But which of the following are racist
statements? And how would you moderate them?

1\. The Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group.

2\. The New Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group.

3\. Affirmative action is discriminatory.

4\. Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes.

And more importantly, who would you trust to make the right choices in whether
to censor these statements?

------
anatolinicolae
And remember to follow us on Facebook and Instagram...

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Is this trolling? They want to fight the two main abusers of personal data by
asking me to give them my personal data on a plate?

Not having any real contact info is not encouraging either.

------
superkuh
The easiest way to get freedom from facebook and google is to simply not use
them yourself. It's the best solution too. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Compare this to the FFFG people advocating for using using government force to
control others' behavior. This may solve the problems FFFG perceives but the
"solution" does more damage (in terms of actually hurting people) than the
problem.

~~~
pmoriarty
Even if you don't use them they'll collect data on you in many different ways:

\- "like" and "share" buttons on completely unrelated web sites that track
your IP when your web browser downloads the images for these buttons or runs
the associated javascript

\- people you know tagging you in photos they upload of you to these sites

\- recaptchas on unralated sites that collect data about your IP, browser
fingerprint, and site you're visiting

There are doubtlessly many, many, many other techniques they (and sites and
companies you probably have no idea are owned by them and that feed data back
in to them) use that don't require you to be on their sites to cyberstalk and
spy on you.

~~~
superkuh
>Even if you don't use them they'll collect data on you in many different ways

They don't because I don't leave javascript execution on like grandma opening
every email attachment she receives.

Other people's behaviors are their business but it's pretty easy to ask people
not to upload photos of you. And if it happens, well, it's actually not a big
deal.

Google recaptchas are super annoying and require whitelisting google
javascript so I don't go to sites that block me with them.

So you see how taking responsibility for my own behavior works here and I
don't need people with guns to coerce other people and cause far more damage
than the original "problem".

~~~
pmoriarty
This is like someone who thinks the video cameras that are now ubiquitous in
public places and stores are not a problem because he never leaves his home.

Or that web tracking is not a problem because he always uses Tor.

Or that emails sent and stored in plain text are not a problem because he
always encrypts them with gpg.

Well, you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't, and there's
a massive societal impact of such widespread surveillance.

The security-conscious technical elite who are willing to live a digitally
monastic lifestyle (as Stallman does when he refuses to browse the web except
through email) might be able to avoid some of that surveillance (though even
then most of them admit they would be unable to stop surveillance by a well
financed and determined adversary), but most everyone else either can't,
won't, or don't realize there's a problem.

The result is a digital dystopia that we're already in, but that's growing
worse by the day. The consequences of it have already been felt by dissidents,
victims of harassment, stalking and identity fraud, and increasingly by kids
who grow up thinking a world without privacy is natural. It's only bound to
get worse from here.

~~~
superkuh
No, it's not. It's like someone who thinks removing video cameras on private
property does not in any way justify bringing over people with guns to coerce
the owner.

It's like the guy knows the people with the cameras are jerks and doesn't go
to their house for BBQ.

~~~
pmoriarty
I'm not even talking about people with cameras in their homes.

Take a look at the ubiquity of cameras in London for an example. Cameras are
everywhere, and you'll be on hundreds if not thousands of them on a typical
day walking around London. They're on street corners, in shops, restaurants,
apartment building hallways, schools, playgrounds, tennis courts, parks, and
pretty much everywhere else you go to.

As an individual, you only option for not being videotaped is to stay home.
All your finger wagging about these people being jerks isn't going to change a
thing.

I also really don't get why you're fixated on guns as being the only solution.
You could simply make laws against it, and if they don't comply you could fine
people/companies, or take away their business licenses. No guns necessary.

~~~
superkuh
I don't live in London. I live in a region without pervasive surveillance. It
sounds terrible and I'm sorry you have to deal with it. This applies both in
the literal and figurative sense.

Don't live in metaphorical London. You don't have to. It's your choice. You
don't need to call in people who threaten to use physical force to get their
way. Just take responsibility and move.

~~~
pmoriarty
London's just an example. Many other cities are the same, and every year more
and more cameras are installed in more and more places all over the world.

Video surveillance is just one example too, web tracking, tagging people in
photos, facial recognition, email surveillance, spyware, workplace
surveillance, profiling of various kinds, and much more is getting more and
more prevalent as the technology that allows it becomes more sophisticated,
cheaper, and widely available.

Yes, you could try to move to more and more rural locations, further and
further away from other people that might spy on you, disconnect yourself as
much as possible from the internet (as Stallman has), and maybe, if no one
powerful or knowledgeable enough cares about you, you might sneak under the
radar and be free.

But what about your kids? What about your family? What about your friends or
the rest of society? Most people aren't willing to go to such extremes, even
if they have the means, knowledge, and care enough to do so.

No. The solution can not be individual. That's failed for decades now.

Collective action must be taken. Not violent action, but legal and financial
action, and educating more people about why it matters and what they can do
apart from trying to run away.

