
Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It - jenkinsj
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html
======
vinniejames
We did replace it, almost 10 years ago. It was called Diaspora[1], no one
cared about privacy then. No one really cares about privacy now, at least not
enough to do anything about it.

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_\(social_network\))

~~~
verylittlemeat
Man I remember the enthusiasm behind Diaspora like it was yesterday. I can
still see in my minds eye that NYTimes article photo of the creators sitting
around like they just invented cold fusion or something.

~~~
marban
Allaire ColdFusion wasn't that big either ;)

~~~
220V_USKettle
Still crankin' w' Lucee today, dude.

------
sidcool
I tried explaining my 20 year old cousin about FB. Her constant argument was
"I don't share anything private on FB". She checks in on FB everywhere she
goes. Posts her pics all the time. I could not instill any sense of concern
for privacy.

What I could conclude is that the appeal of social is too great to have any
caution. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think FB is going anywhere. People
will keep using it inspite of the risks. It's like a smoking addiction. It's
bad but very difficult to give up.

~~~
panarky
_> It's like a smoking addiction_

It's awesome to watch massive shifts in values and priorities.

Smoking used to be seen as cool, sexy, even healthy. Now it's widely seen as
unhealthy and disgusting.

Same thing with high-fructose carbonated beverages.

I remember people using terms like "retarded" and "gyp" without hesitation.
Today even people who hate political correctness don't talk like that in
public.

It wasn't long ago that men abusing women in the workplace was routine and
unremarkable. Now it's outrageous and shameful.

Things change, slowly at first, and then all at once. People are waking up and
it will never be the same for Facebook.

~~~
sidcool
That is a good point. What baffles me is it took so much evidence from the
medical community to convince people about smoking. And many still do it!
Adverse effects of technology/social in general wouls be even more difficult
to prove. I see technology addicts' rehabilitation centres a reality in near
future.

~~~
freeflight
> What baffles me is it took so much evidence from the medical community to
> convince people about smoking.

That isn't really the issue, smokers have been aware of the negative
consequences for quite a while. Many are okay with it due to the relief the
smoking brings them from stress and other issues, it's a trade-off. Just like
alcohol ain't that healthy for you but many people still chose to drink it.

But on the other hand you have massive companies who've spent decades and
billions of $ in making tobacco as addictive, and easy to smoke, as possible.
So once the customers are hooked it's extremely difficult for them to kick the
habit and even when they manage to kick it, many will still get cravings for
years, if not decades, to come.

Which could be explained by this:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-
smoki...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/)

~~~
thaumasiotes
For the effect on schizophrenia to explain the people who have difficulty
quitting smoking, the population of people who have difficulty quitting
smoking would have to be similar in size to (really, smaller than) the
population of schizophrenics.

But I would bet that it's much larger.

~~~
freeflight
Afaik schizophrenia is a spectrum, so some are bound to be affected worse than
others. I also didn't say it was the only reason for people having trouble
kicking the habit, only one of the factors for it, so there's still plenty of
room for non-schizophrenics not being able to kick the habit due to tobacco
(and the additives tobacco companies add to it) being highly addictive.

------
jamestimmins
It's interesting that Tim Wu discussed the cycle of technology starting
amongst outsiders and then becoming monopolized in his (phenomenal) book The
Master Switch. The cycle always repeats itself by the next new technology
coming along, making the prior one less significant.

We seem to have accepted that the internet is essentially the final
communication tech. Maybe that's true, but it seems improbable. Simply based
on his past writing, I'm surprised he isn't advocating for a solution based on
the blockchain.

I'm not suggesting that's the right answer; I merely find it curious that he
didn't apply the same assumptions to the future as he did to his historical
analysis.

~~~
jgh
I'm not really sure how blockchain is related to a potential "next"
communication technology. Why not AR? Why not lasers n shit?

~~~
joejerryronnie
Wait for it . . . "Quantum Blockchain" \- Boom!

~~~
koolba
Qubitcoin!

[1]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit)

------
jjrh
I think in the long run we will use a decentralised/federated system. Privacy
concerns aside, it just doesn't make sense to rely on one service or expect
one social network to meet everyone's needs/desires.

~~~
thephyber
I think this is exactly how health/medical data should exist. My family should
have their own health/medical network node and only my direct healthcare
providers should be able to access the data from it and only _after_ I
authorize them with a digital signature. Whatever data they generate about my
person (or persons in my family) should be owned by me, stored in my family
network, and only available to others _after_ I explicitly authorize it.

The massive collections of monolith data sets for financials, health/medical,
credit history, employment records, taxes, census, etc are far too valuable to
not be highly valuable to criminal orgs and/or government entities.
Centralization into monolithic organizations will lead to irreversible issues
of data non-privacy for a generation or more..

~~~
saganus
Uhmmm...just thinking out loud here.

How feasible do you think it would be to use Mastodon for this?

If you have a "Medical Node" as you put it (which I find apt btw), you could
share it with your doctor(s) and provide access (maybe using Keybase? Auth0?)
for them to either add "their own posts" with the analysis results, their
findings, etc, or just to read the relevant data (e.g. for a dentist).

Again, just thinking out loud, but they way you put it sounded interesting :)

~~~
wilde
Does Mastodon have a fax interface?

[https://www.vox.com/health-
care/2017/10/30/16228054/american...](https://www.vox.com/health-
care/2017/10/30/16228054/american-medical-system-fax-machines-why)

~~~
HillaryBriss
nice article.

"It turns out there are strong economic incentives for doctors to keep patient
information to themselves — and even stronger incentives for electronic
medical records not to play nicely with each other."

"While patients might want one hospital to exchange information with another
hospital, those institutions have little incentive to do so. A shared medical
record, after all, makes it easier to see a different doctor. A walled garden
— where records only get traded within one hospital system — can encourage
patients to stick with those providers."

------
p49k
Has anyone seen a product that was functional, polished, and enjoyable to use
that would be capable of replacing Facebook? I haven't. Diaspora, Mastodon,
Ello are the only things that I can think of, and none of them come close to
matching the basic functionality and the "it just works" factor of Facebook.

Maybe someone should put in some resources to create a polished product and
see what happens? It doesn't even have to be some idealistic p2p distributed
system or anything like that, just a company who actively works to minimize
the data they store and to allow users to control and manage their data
effectively.

~~~
pnutjam
Try this one. It's the most user friendly I've seen:
[https://mewe.com](https://mewe.com)

~~~
dhimes
OK- just signed up

------
vijaybritto
"Another “alt-Facebook” could be a nonprofit that uses that status to signal
its dedication to better practices, much as nonprofit hospitals and
universities do" -> Honestly, I don't think this would be sustainable to
function as a social network. At least I don't think it would work in a
capitalist society.

~~~
jcadam
I've had the same thought. Charge a small monthly fee in lieu of running ads
or selling user data. Might cut down on fake/spam accounts as well.

But I don't think it would work (and I'd totally work on something like this
if I thought it would). People _say_ they care about privacy, but when you
present them with the option of paying $5/mo for a service that respects their
privacy or using a "free" service that tracks everything they do and sells
that data to anyone who'll pay, they'll almost always opt for the latter.

Now, _I_ would certainly pay a monthly fee for a non-user-hostile social
network experience. And I would consider the smaller user base a feature, so
long as it wasn't _too_ small.

~~~
bachmeier
$60/year to post about taking the kids to visit Grandma is pretty steep for
most users.

~~~
908087
Maybe we should take that as a sign that announcing every trip to visit
grandma to the world just isn't a thing we need to be doing.

------
gvurrdon
The only possible thing for which I might need Facebook would be for groups,
as some hobbies seem to have almost entirely moved there for event
organisation and general discussion.

Previously we used to use forums such as phpBB, but setting up one of these
involved finding someone able to host the forum software on their server.
Tapatalk could be set up to improve the mobile experience, but most users
seemed to find that somehow difficult. There was also a constant battle with
spam and malware.

I'm not sure what would suit - Mastodon and Diaspora don't seem to me to be
the right solutions here. Currently, I am making do with being out of the loop
and missing things.

------
ohiovr
I think we need alternatives to text only communication. If we could judge
each other's tones maybe we would chill out a bit.

~~~
ams6110
Text can work OK between people who know each other well and are familiar with
each other's patterns of speech and sense of humor. Not perfect, but generally
OK.

Much worse between people who aren't so well acquainted. I'm actually in the
middle of trying to mediate a disagreement based mainly on two entirely
different perceptions of intent in some stuff that was written in an email.

------
pi-squared
I wonder what is the penetration of these kind of news outside our bubble here
at HN, reddit and the like. I'm wondering the rest 2 billion people (which to
a first approximation is probably just about everybody) care about this or are
willing to care if few of their techie friends leave facebook. Is there some
mathematical model + social science that could estimate the network effects of
say, every techie person does leave facebook for good - what would happen to
the rest?

Most of my non-techie friends have heard briefly about "some kind of scandal
with facebook" but I cannot possibly appeal to them talking about "privacy" or
they are stealing and selling your data - "Oh, everybody does that, you can't
not use the Internet".

~~~
keybits
DuckDuckGo did a survey of just over 1,000 random US adults after the
Cambridge Analytica story: [https://spreadprivacy.com/cambridge-
analytica/](https://spreadprivacy.com/cambridge-analytica/)

~~~
skinnymuch
A lot of people might say they are going to do more for privacy or interact
with FB and other social media less, but until there’s a proper followup study
in day 6 months, I don’t know if I believe all the respondents. I believe that
they tried to truthfully answer the questions. But that some of it is
reactionary and/or the right thing to say at the time. Maybe I’m wrong though?

Thanks for the link of course! Great write up and charts to look through.

------
908087
I find Zuckerberg's argument that Facebook needs to be the way it is so that
"people who can't afford it can have access" pretty repulsive and incredibly
sleazy.

If people can't afford a few dollars a month, why in the fuck would it be
acceptable to expose them to manipulative ads that encourage them to hand over
money that Zuckerberg claims they don't have? He tries to paint himself and
his company as altruistic, while simultaneously exploiting the hell out of the
people he claims to be "helping".

------
jenkinsj
I'm captivated by the phrase "free content (sic) is the creature, the servant
and indeed the prostitute of merchandizing". -Walter Lippmann

------
heisnotanalien
Why can't I just pay for FB a monthly fee and as such they have no need to
make money by selling my data or spamming me with crappy ads?

~~~
6ak74rfy
A usual CPC (cost per click) that an advertiser is willing to pay is somewhere
between 50 to 150 cents. Let's say it is 100, and you clicked on 10 ads in a
month. So, Facebook earned $10 off you. Now, you should be willing to pay more
than that for Facebook to prefer the model you are suggesting.

My math above is highly simplistic. For e.g., you'd say you aggressively use
an ad blocker and never click on ads. Fair enough, but what about non - tech
people unlike us? For e.g., when my dad starting using Facebook at an age of
50+ couple of years, he just _tried_ an unknown plumber through a Facebook ad.
Moreover, you'd be willing to pay a monthly subscription, but would _all_ of
your friends?

So, what I am getting at is that at Facebook scale they'll earn more though
ads than through a subscription model.

~~~
mrweasel
The value you represent to Facebook is also dependent on your location. People
in the US are worth the most, around $60 per year:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/how-
much-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/how-much-are-you-
worth-to-facebook)

For heavy Facebook users $60 isn't much, but for everyone else it seems a
little much.

~~~
mch82
If they really focused on delivering quality tools for organizing groups I'd
pay that. $60 is a bargain compared to MeetUp.com admin fees.

------
ntnsndr
I briefly spoke with Wu some weeks ago about platform cooperativism. I suppose
he wasn't impressed.

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvxbgq/its-time-for-
mark-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvxbgq/its-time-for-mark-
zuckerberg-to-give-up-control-of-facebook)

------
supermatt
What a naive article!

The reality is that we can either have a paid-for walled garden so that bad
actors cant leach data, or a decentralised and trust-driven network.

It only takes a "friend" using a nefarious client/implementation to send all
your data to a 3rd party.

~~~
sgk284
Even a paid-for walled garden is likely not sufficient. Plenty of services you
pay for and/or are the customer of still resell your data (see: banks & credit
card companies).

------
chx
Better will be _hard_. If you want people to come, you need to build something
that Facebook doesn't provide. I have no idea what that will be but I do not
think just privacy protection would be enough. By far.

------
narven
Do we really need another crap to replace it? just shut it down.

------
herbst
Why even replace it? Pseudo chronological single wall views are simply not a
modern way to consume information anymore.

Not to mention, which crazy brain even proposed to fix it?

------
jenkinsj
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment but respect Dr. Wu's option. I'm
also interested in the HN community's options.

------
jacinabox
A quick research job has revealed that most of the interesting features of
facebook, in particular "liking" posts and friend suggestion, are patented by
facebook. It would be difficult therefore for a new entrant to copy its
features.

~~~
Slansitartop
> A quick research job has revealed that most of the interesting features of
> facebook, in particular "liking" posts ... are patented by facebook.

I find find this hard to believe. Don't competing networks have similar
functionality (e.g. "hearting")? What exactly about "liking" has Facebook
patented?

I'm much more ready to believe "liking" is _trademarked_ , though I'm still
skeptical of it, given that it's an everyday word used with its everyday
meaning.

~~~
carlmr
Facebook has likes, Reddit has upvotes and downvotes, I don't know the name on
HN or Stackoverflow.

Just calling it something different seems to be enough.

------
yy77
If privacy is really a concern, one should live like Jack Reacher, even not
use credit card. Current situation is that, we want to happy share and attract
attention on facebook. If it did something wrong, let the court sues it.

------
ravenstine
NY Times was among the numerous media companies that slobbered over Facebook
for years and gave them free publicity. And now I'm supposed to listen to them
when they say to replace Facebook.

------
billconan
I think my ideal social network would be something like reddit + medium +
slack.

and it will be for expanding my social network and finding people alike, not
for watching daily bullshit from existing friends.

------
jyriand
Orkut, please come back.

------
nso95
It will neither be fixed or replaced

~~~
gaius
But it could be destroyed. I’ll settle for that.

------
pcunite
I don't want my stuff in the "cloud", I want it shared from my lawn. My own
personal space to where people can access my stuff, that I share, and we can
converse over whatever that is ... my own GDPR rules.

~~~
TheAceOfHearts
Have you seen Beaker [0]? It doesn't require you to setup a complex web server
and configure a bunch of stuff, you just run the browser and it'll start
sharing your website. It's a move back to a truly decentralized web.

[0] [https://beakerbrowser.com/](https://beakerbrowser.com/)

~~~
newscracker
I actually tried this a while ago, and found that the audience also had to use
Beaker to access the content. That's a huge barrier if current browsers don't
support this.

~~~
staticvar
Beaker uses Dat protocol as opposed to HTTP under the hood. Dat protocol
support is coming to Brave browser, probably Firefox next. The P2P web is
about to take off.

~~~
indigodaddy
I like the idea of dat/ipfs/p2p web, however , I'm hesitant to use my personal
computer as the "peer" for this sort of thing.

Can you just host/peer your ipfs/dat webpages/services/stuff from a Linux
VPS/server?

------
naskwo
For photo sharing, I set up www.famipix.com in 2005...

------
feelin_googley
Prof. Wu makes a couple of assumptions when he gives suggestions for Facebook
alternatives or successors. I dont see those suggestions as the most important
point of his argument however. I believe the most important point is that
there must be competition, that trying to "fix" Facebook will not suffice.

Nonetheless, these are the assumptions I see:

1\. The software alternatives or successors _must be commercial_.

2\. The software must attract a _certain quantity of users_ to be viable.

3\. The software must enable networks _comprising large numbers of people_ ,
perhaps in the millions or billions.

This scale is far greater than the average size of any Facebook users group of
friends.

Over the years Facebook may have morphed into a "public square" for exercising
"Free Speech" but in the beginning as I recall it was _not_ a means to
broadcast to other users outside of ones social circle.

Its primary utility is arguably still in enabling communication within small
groups, _not_ enabling broadcasting to the general public.

Wu's assumptions point toward a Zuckerberg-like _centrally-managed_ approach
to what I see as historically a _locally-managed_ activity: the human tendency
to form _small groups_.

For many years, gamers and others have been writing software to enable small
groups to communicate over peer-to-peer networking, without any funding from
advertisers.

Wu writes, "So what stands in the way of a genuine Facebook alternative? _It
isn 't the technology_."

Thats exactly right. IMHO.

~~~
eadmund
> This scale is far greater than the average size of any Facebook users group
> of friends.

Yes, but only _an individual Facebook user_. The problem is that my friends'
friends' friends' friends' friends' friends encompass the entire human race:
at some point, as I invite people who invite people who invite people, the
underlying technology has to be able to support all mankind.

Indeed, I suspect that this — not some momentary privacy-failure flash-in-the-
pan will be what leads to Facebook's _actual_ downfall. It's ultimately
building a proprietary Internet (in the sense of a fabric which connects
people), and that's _extraordinarily_ expensive. At the end of the day, the
actual Internet is able to do that far more cheaply.

I imagine that the replacement for Facebook will be something like email:
something under the control of its users, something anyone will be able to add
himself to and anyone will be able to block.

~~~
indigodaddy
Could a viable Facebook competitor be built on a distributed/p2p type network,
perhaps something like ipfs and/or mesh networking?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Have you heard of Mastodon?

[https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/)

~~~
newscracker
Isn't Mastodon more of a Twitter replacement than a replacement for Facebook
(which has time line, groups, pages, etc.)? I'm curious to know what's closer
to what Facebook provides and is decentralized.

~~~
BadassFractal
Diaspora?

~~~
im_dario
I think no ActivityPub support should be an instant "nope" nowadays for any
project willing to be considered as Facebook replacement/alternative: [0]

0:
[https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/issues/7422](https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/issues/7422)

------
feelin_googley
"Poll: Do you trust Facebook?

...

THIS MORNING, IT emerged that nearly 45,000 Irish Facebook profiles may have
been affected by the giant data breach involving as many as 87 million
accounts harvested by UK data intelligence firm Cambridge Analytica.

Those 45,000 accounts could have been breached due to just 15 Irish people
accessing a questionnaire app, thisisyourdigitallife, which included in its
permissions the granting of access to all an individual's friends' profiles."

Source:

[http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-trust-
facebook-3941194-...](http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-trust-
facebook-3941194-Apr2018/)

------
feelin_googley
"These days, you might get more applause for _not_ being on social media than
for reaching a follower milestone in Europe's liberal hubs such as Berlin or
Paris.

...

The mechanisms used by Cambridge Analytica and the "malicious actors" cited by
Facebook appear to have been legal and do not constitute a data hack, but
rather a _deliberate exploitation_ of information through tools or loopholes
Facebook itself provided in the past.

...

At least two foreign governments, Australia and Germany, threatened or
launched investigations into the practices on Thursday.

...

Meanwhile, in India, where more than a half-million users are estimated to be
affected, the allegations have resulted in a governmental request to Facebook
and Cambridge Analytica for more detailed information, with a Saturday
deadline.

Even though India is now Facebook's biggest market - ahead of the United
States - no Indian media outlets were able to ask questions in a conference
call with CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday.

The heavy U.S. focus immediately triggered criticism because privacy advocates
are still looking into reports that Cambridge Analytica may have used Facebook
data to influence Indian politics, as well.

...

German justice minister Katarina Barley already called for an E.U.-wide
investigation into the misuse of Facebook's data by Cambridge Analytica and
other companies on Thursday.

"Facebook has gambled away people's trust," Barley said.

...

But in Europe, Germany's justice minister and others already fear that _the
latest regulations aren 't enough_."

Source:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/05...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/05/as-
facebook-confronts-tough-questions-on-data-misuse-europe-might-force-real-
change/)

------
feelin_googley
"Do these hundreds of millions of people who cannot wait to tell the world
what they are doing practically minute by minute not realise that anyone with
an ounce of brain can find out everything about them just by reading their
posts?

As the FBI admitted a while back, Facebook was the best thing that happened to
collecting intelligence and saving money (because everything is in the open).

By having "free" access and use of Facebook, these people have made Mark
Zuckerberg a multibillionaire."

Source:

[https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/letters/2018-04-04...](https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/letters/2018-04-04-letter-
facebook-is-not-free/)

------
feelin_googley
"Australia's privacy commissioner has launched an investigation to determine
whether Facebook breached the Australian privacy act.

...

Facebook has admitted 311,127 Australian users are likely among the up to 87
million users worldwide whose data was unknowingly and "improperly" shared
with the British political consultancy agency."

Source:

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/05/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/05/facebook-
suspects-300000-australians-had-data-shared-with-cambridge-analytica)

------
dreamygeek
It's too messed up now anyways. The privacy settings sucked right from the
beginning of Facebook. And it just kept getting worse. Guess people are just
used to it now just like slaves get used to slavery and can't get out of it.

------
feelin_googley
"In 2013, Brandon Copley, the CEO of Giftnix, was threatened with legal action
after using the technique to demonstrate how personal information could be
easily gathered at scale.

"Multiple Facebook profiles were extremely easy to scrape," he explains. In a
series of conversations with Facebook security developers Copley explained the
issue and was told there was "no security vuln here, even though it does seem
like one on first glance."

The method of scraping can work in multiple ways but largely relies on feeding
Facebook's API a list of phone numbers or email addresses that have been
automatically generated. These could also have been obtained from data
breaches or leaks of information online.

"Just query Facebook as often as possible until they ban your IP for querying
too fast, and at that point you just slow down until the queries stop," Copley
explained in an email. "I was doing my work purely for research and exposing
the vulnerability for Facebook".

...

The issue was again raised by researchers in 2015.

Reza Moaiandin, who founded cybersecurity company CyberScanner, published a
blogpost about the "loophole". he said he was able to gather thousands of
users personal information by guessing their mobile numbers. Within this
information were details of names, locations, and profile pictures.

In response Facebook told him it didn't "consider it a security vulnerability"
but had controls in place to stop it being abused. Zuckerberg's most recent
statement goes against this, admitting Facebook's efforts to stop malicious
actors hadn't worked."

Source:

[http://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-news-data-
scraping-m...](http://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-news-data-scraping-
mark-zuckerburg)

"A few months ago, I discovered a security loophole in Facebook that allows
hackers to decrypt and sniff out Facebook user IDs using one of Facebook's
APIs in bulk - therefore allowing them to gather millions of users' personal
data (name, telephone number, location, images, and more). This post is an
attempt to catch Facebook's attention to get this issue fixed.

By using a script, an entire country's (I tested with the US, the UK and
Canada) possible number combinations can be run through these URLs, and if a
number is associated with a Facebook account, it can then be associated with a
name and further details (images, and so on).

...

For those of you who are wondering why I haven't notified Facebook about the
issue, the truth is that I have - back in April (2015).

Although I did receive a reply, initially the engineer I was in contact with
was unable to reproduce the issue himself, and therefore failed to understand
the technical details of how it should be _fixed_.

...

After a couple of months of waiting, I initially thought someone else will
look into it and _fix it_ but I heard nothing, so I raised the flag with them
again. They finally came back to me and told me that this is not a big issue -
they have set limits and I should not worry about this problem. But frankly, I
am very worried.

...

Comment from reader:

Great blog post. I reported an almost identical issue (albeit a different API)
to Facebook in January 2014 but faced similar difficulties getting them to
recognise the scope for abuse. I was able to lookup contiguous blocks of
mobile numbers (in blocks of 5,000 at a time) with no discernible rate-
limiting - I could pull them down as fast as my connection could handle (maybe
~50k numbers/min).

If you make any headway with Facebook let us know and I will try pinging them
again. It was especially worrisome as the number range I tried (NYC) had a
hit-rate of about 20%."

Source:

[https://salt.agency/blog/facebook-security-
loophole/](https://salt.agency/blog/facebook-security-loophole/)

------
exolymph
Normies don't care about privacy enough to stop using Facebook.

