No. You didn't 'go through your systems' and you didn't think of this at all. The European GDPR requires you to offer this, at least to EU citizens. Don't pretend that isn't the only reason you even built this feature.
At least acknowledge and respect what FB is doing here. Over the past month, everyone here was up in arms on how FB was collecting their data from 3rd party sites and there is no easy way to opt out or delete it. Now you have a way to do exactly that.
You can't have it both ways. FB is collecting data to target better ads but they are also providing much stronger controls for users to control what data you want to share. FB could've not done this (at least outside Europe) but chose to do it.
As a contrary example, look at Google or Twitter. They also have to follow GDPR guidelines wrt data erasure from 3rd party sites/apps. THey aren't choosing to offer this functionality outside Europe when, at least in the case of Google, they probably more data than Facebook.
So please acknowledge this effort from Facebook rather than staying on your high horse and being cynical about everything.
BTW, picking Google as your example was bad - you could download, remove, modify your Google data since ... basically forever, I think; now that option is in "My Account" - "Personal Info & Privacy", but I remember it being there long ago; I actually did a data science course a few years back where the participants downloaded & explored their own personal information, so I'm quite certain this is not a new feature.
Thank you Master Zuckerberg for doing the minimum.
Disclosure: I work for Google, but I'm genuinely curious. I've seen no evidence of "shadow profiles" but it is a big company so I couldn't say for sure one way or another.
I think the chances that Google had some type of profiling system for non users is well above 80%.
You have to identify yourself to make the request, but the process should be self healing because they are then required to also delete the PII in your request to delete your PII (unless it's required for regulatory reasons, but this applies more to banks than google or facebook).
A majority of Facebook user's aren't'techies'. It was Facebook's responsibility to make such features available/easy to access in the first place. It shouldn't have to be a legal requirement. Google/Twitter doing or not doing it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Also, Google and Twitter are relevant here since they are collecting 3rd party data and not offering this delete functionality. But no one is taking that up. Sometimes I wonder if this is really about privacy or just about Facebook.
This is indeed what happens to companies that cannot comply with the law because of mistakes committed in the past, yes.
You mean collecting data FOR third parties for profit and the impact of these tactics of misinformation had real impacts. There is not much to "respect" Facebook for given what (little) we know now.
You're conflating healthy skepticism with being cynical.
>So please acknowledge this effort from Facebook rather than staying on your high horse and being cynical about everything.
Please acknowledge FB fundamentally doesn't operate with our best interests in mind and this is why the default attitude to the company should be one of being skeptical and cautious.
>Please acknowledge FB fundamentally doesn't operate with our best interests in mind and this is why the default attitude to the company should be one of being skeptical and cautious.
No I will not acknowledge this. Personally, I like that FB ads are well targeted, that I am able to discover new content, and also the fact that I am able to keep in touch with a number of my friends (who otherwise I wouldn't have) because of it. This is your opinion and you are totally entitled to it.
That's cute but as far as I can tell from your comment history, you don't even live in the EU, you don't get to speak for us (I only looked because I didn't want to assume). The laws in the USA must be just to your liking, because for at least the past month, you seem to have been doing nothing but arguing for data collection overreach and against privacy, while simultaneously playing the "what about Google/Twitter/FB/the other one" card.
A terrorist takes a hostage, and a cop asks the terrorist not to kill the hostage and allows the terrorist to keep causing terror insofar as it doesn't involve killing hostages, and the terrorist doesn't kill the hostage, and the hostage is grateful with the terrorist for not having killed him even when he is kept hostage.
How do you know? Did you see the source code? For all I know they can clear it in user-facing UX only but keep it secretly on servers in international waters or wherever and use it batch-wise to compute stuff about you, including sharing it with 3rd parties you wouldn't want to be ever involved with. Those 3rd parties then can use FB Cayman Islands or a similar branch to get dirty data. Do you think all those intelligence and society-engineering think tanks would be happy losing their main source of data and won't try to find a way to continue doing it?
Good luck with that attitude
Could they, really ? Would it have made a difference ? You can just log in, change your location to a European country and then delete everything.
> As a contrary example, look at Google or Twitter. They also have to follow GDPR guidelines wrt data erasure from 3rd party sites/apps. THey aren't choosing to offer this functionality outside Europe when, at least in the case of Google, they probably more data than Facebook.
Again, change your location and just delete it anyway. Do you expect them to ask for proof of residence ?
I want it neither way. Facebook should delete all data and immediately stop collecting it.
Why the hell do I need to respect Facebook? What respectful thing have they done? You say it as if they have some kind of right to be respected for having to be dragged into following the EU rules on privacy.
Do you remember how much shit they pulled when people tried to use the EU rights we already had before the GDPR? You know the thing where you ask a business for a full report on all the personal data they have on you?
FB was dragging its heels in the sand over that, because ooohh it was too impractical because they had too much fucking data. Well guess what, having way too much data on their user profiles is on them. That is exactly why those laws exist, to deter corporations from collecting ridiculous amounts of data they can't fully inform their users about. Those rules existed already when they started collecting the data and they did it regardless of knowing that they could never comply to the law. Tried to make a big sad show about it when someone called them on it: "look at these gigantic stacks of dead tree paper, are we supposed to mail them to anyone who just requests them?", no you fucks, you should've never let those stacks grow this huge in the first place.
For years, they've knowingly gone way WAY too far in collecting private data from Europeans, and now they're getting burned for that. People, also here on HN, have been pointing out years ago already that existing EU regulations about privacy, let alone these regulations that have been looming on the horizon, when these regulations will be enacted they are going to hurt like hell for FB.
Unlike human rights to life and freedom etc, there's no corporate right to exist as a business.
They could have prepared by taking a good look at themselves, realizing they were collecting way too much data to ever comply to the spirit of the EU regulations, which was pretty damn clearly past any sort of reasonable. But they did nothing to limit the amount of data they were collecting, instead they amped it up! They took that gamble, keep doing what we're doing and hope we'll get away with it. And isn't it crazy how in a functioning regulatory system, when corporations keep sidestepping it, we tend to update the letter of the law to reflect the spirit of it? Sucks for FB, but they already chose the non-respectable route quite a few years ago.
FB did nothing except try to push back when called on it, instead of respectfully listening. Only now, with the GDPR and the fire to their heels, you see them trying all the wrong things. They don't get points for trying any more. They could have, had they tried when the warnings were just warnings. But when the warnings turn law, you're gonna get burned. They should be burning their data centres.
There's no "damned if you do, damned if you don't", there's only a "damned if you keep the data around that prohibits you from following the law".
And now they're forced to play by the rules. Barely. They don't get any respect for that, they get a "well at least you seem to play by the rules NOW" for that. Respect is earned by acting upon that spirit for years, not by grudgingly doing it once.
Even in the linked article, Zuckerberg admits himself, he only learned to listen last week when he was dragged to testify to congress. "Respectfully", that's way too late and FB deserves to go the way of MySpace over that.
There's also some stipulations in the GDPR about having to provide clearly worded language about how they use your data. Except the language I've seen so far is very passive aggressive and emotionally manipulative as hell. It's partially a cultural thing, American customers don't seem to mind being talked down to by businesses (unless you tip them?). And you still have to translate Termsofserviceolese to human language to make any sense of it (even then, I still don't understand all of their wording).
This is on them. They're trying to defend the indefensible. Just asking the users "do you want us to sell your data to advertisers? (click here to read more) YES/NO", nobody needs to read more, and everyone who does, still clicks NO.
They're also supposed to provide clear and easy-to-use controls to control how your private data is used. Except they CAN'T provide these because they've been collecting WAY too much data on you all to EVER be able to provide a clear interface for a single person to manage it. Fact is, the controls are NOT easy to use. They just aren't. Because it's too much channels, data and ways it is sold to whoever. Again this is a hard, near-impossible problem they brought down on themselves. They're not too big to fail.
About the manipulative language I mentioned above; I don't have a FB account myself but I read along with my girlfriends' pop up dialog about "new ways to choose about what data we collect or something", that everybody gets. I simply can't respect any corporation that thinks it can talk down to me like that. The way that piece of garbage was worded was disrespectful as fuck. You know how they tried to guilt-trip her into not disabling face detection?
Repeating, several times, that if she disabled it, it was her fault if blind people couldn't use FB because they wouldn't know about photos she appears in but wasn't tagged in. I gotta give it to Facebook, that is a most creative way to put a positive spin on the word "panopticon".
The other reasoning was threatening her that people would use her photos and likeness to impersonate her if she dared to disable face recognition. Again, repeated multiple times throughout the dialog. Fuck you, Facebook.
I'll respect FB when I hear from my girlfriend that she got a similarly threatening dialog warning her about privacy implications and advising to try to use this Clear History at least once, nagging a few times perhaps. Just to say "we may be passive aggressive emotionally manipulative dicks in our communication, but at least we're respectfully balanced about it". But I don't think regular users are going to get a dialog presenting the existence of this feature at all.
And in the linked article, Zuckerberg warns you that if you clear your "FB history" they will make FB experience worse. They don't have to, but he makes it sounds like they do. The comparison to browser cookies is disgustingly disingenuous: People disable browser cookies mainly because they allow bad actors to do bad things, and have to weigh this against good websites using the same technology for benign purposes. But in this case, there is only ONE actor, Facebook, and it's doing both things. It's not like there's a "bad Facebook" that Zuckerberg can't control (well, unless there is, in which case we definitely should shut the whole thing down).
He does admit it's been asked for in the next sentence.
Or are you saying the timing is purely coincidental ?
“We’ll do what we’re told, but only because we want to”
Companies know they’re above the law at this point and are getting more brazen about it.
I look forward to the even more damage control...
The Guardian coverage (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/01/facebook-...) has this quote like a parent explaining to a 5 year old why they shouldn't delete cookies:
> Zuckerberg also cautioned users against clearing cookies in their browser, saying “it can make parts of your experience worse”, and adding, “Your Facebook won’t be as good while it relearns your preferences.”
I wonder why he's so afraid of people clearing his tracking pixels.
"I don't understand why porn websites have a +1 under the videos? Why would I want anyone to know I use Google+?"
(More than just Cassandra tho, many databases don't actually "delete", at least not immediately. They "mark for deletion", and may or may not _actually ever delete_ anything.)
The database not actually deleting is still the application properly deleting it. If the DB eventually carries that out or not is a lesser concern to me, tbh.
The concern here is that facebook doesn't actually tombstone their entries or doesn't even have their DB mark it deleted.
I am sure they aren't purging backups of the data.
What if hacker deletes your Facebook account? Under GDPR Facebook has actually obligation to keep your data safe from this scenario. Which means they have to keep logs to investigate what happened and also be able to restore your data.
You should delete backups after certain amount of time and state your policy to users.
You can't keep indefinite backups and comply with GDPR.
So if your 5 year old backup, which has no purpose at all, gets stolen, expect a whopping fine for being an idiot. Or your web logs get stolen and it turns out you keep them 2 years, don't expect favourable treatment as that's totally unnecessary data retention.
I'd happily put down $50 for whoever spilled the beans on what is really going on at Facebook and other companies in that vein.
What do you reckon is the chance of them removing this from their ad targeting data set "account"??? They're just going to give you a tool that shows some of it to you, then hides it from you when you click the [fuck me over more] button (and they'll record _that_ interaction too, and sell you to the "tinfoil" and "headwear" segments.
is there a chance smaller than zero?
Since the GDPR covers people in the EU that means if you're in the US you can take a vacation to Italy or France or Germany and then pull that stunt on Facebook. (technically)
Political farce aside, he does have a point, cookies are fundamentally tokens of persistence. Persistent cookies let you configure the websites without creating accounts and stay logged in on the websites you do have accounts on. Loosing that is inconvenient which means it will make parts of the experience worse.
Believe me, "my Facebook" isn't very good with the feed with five years worth of tracking... At least I can have my crappy feed with more of a peace of mind, that's a net win, right?
The idea was that you would have access via Facebook to all the potentially interested people that dropped off because your landing page or product were not yet ready for launch.
From Facebook's perspective, this is data that is valuable to potential customers that want to buy ad space.
I know, Poe's Law, etc. etc., but I'm truly surprised at the amount of comments missing the dripping sarcasm from this last line of the post. Especially since the adjective "tracking" was used to describe the pixels. I will say that English is my native language though and HN is a diverse group.
Are you being sarcastic? I can think of several reasons Zuck wouldn't want people clearing their cookies. The primary one being the loss (even though temporary) of data resolution for targeting ads.
The unique views problem is interesting from a marketing perspective though. I doubt it will change much but for larger companies it might require adjustment.
Also interesting that they are allowing a theoretical cap on the information they collect. I imagine they'll be moving more into services to avoid future data privacy issues. That means B2B too, FYI...
Because that would be the end of a gigantic portion of Facebook ad revenue - which should scare users (if they like Facebook) as well. Without the pixel, Facebook ads will be the joke they were when they were first introduced - hardly effective and a money losing proposition for advertisers. A few big brand advertisers that don’t care about ROI might stick around, but everyone else will leave.
They can still build profiles orders of magnitude more relevant than, say, Google. The web tracking is just an optimization to get the types of data Google has, too.
Retargeting is not just an optimization. For many advertisers, it's the saving grace of the Facebook ads system that produced absurdly poor results before it was introduced. Facebook ads were the brunt of jokes back then, and it will return to that status if too many people use this feature.
It's like they're trying to trick the press into covering it before anyone can actually test it -- while reducing the actual amount of coverage it gets when it's finally available to real users.
Yep, when big guys like the NSA claimed to delete all data collected without releasing any details, I'm sure at best they drag and drop a few files into Recycle_Bin.
Sounds like they designed this feature explicitly to show people why they need to provide facebook data. Instead of designing facebook features so that they can enjoyed while preserving privacy, Facebook is making moves to explicitly show how on Facebook privacy is at odds with utilitarianism of their product.
In all seriousness, how is that possible any other way? Take the example he gives about log in. If you want a website to automatically know who you are without logging in, please let me know how that is possible without automatically sending identifying information to the website.
And I prefer seeing good ads over bad ones
Privacy and usability are not orthogonal, though Facebook will definitely go leaps and bounds beyond themselves to try to convince the public that it is so.
Privacy and usability actually are orthogonal, as the cookie and login issue shows. You will see this again and again in almost every service. People can't offer loans without knowing credit history. Games can't do balanced matchmaking systems without learning about your level of skill. A website can't send you emails unless you give them your email. I could go on, but I think you are upset enough with Facebook that you won't get the point.
Too bad Facebook couldn't figure out a way to remember I prefer a chronological news feed even with cookies.
There probably will be a difference, but I think in actual use, for most people, it will be very small.
For example: If my mother "cleared her history", I really doubt she would notice the worse quality of Facebook and regret deleting her data, as the top-level comment implied. So my point is it's not a move to show how effective the algorithms are, but a privacy-conscious one from Facebook.
It would be unreasonable of anyone to expect to see location-based content if they'd opted out of location sharing.
Trivial example: I can't email you if you withhold email consent.
What I can’t do is email you marketing newsletters the times a week for the next decade, or sell your email address to ‘specially selected trusted partners’.
The collection, storage and processing of personal data is presumed to be unlawful by default, unless it is for a specific, explicit and legitimate purpose. These core principles are set out in Article 5 and they are well worth reading and reflecting on.
Did the user give you explicit and informed consent for a specific use a specific piece of data? Is your use of data absolutely essential to fulfil your contractual obligations to that user? Are you required by law to collect and store that data? Is your use of data essential to preserve human life? If you can't confidently say yes to at least one of those questions, then you're probably in breach.
Most of the advice I've received is to focus on documenting what data you hold, and what you're doing with it. Just by doing that, you'll probably improve your processes. If you did have any problems with the ICO, those documents will go a long way to showing that you took GDPR seriously.
(and maybe article 9)
If you conduct business with an individual, most of time, your legal basis will be the Legitimate interests of both parties, you should only rely on consent for non-necessary part/service (like subscribing to a newsletter, or sharing information for improving the service).
For a good summary of that, I would recommand this ICO document: https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultations/2013551...
This is an excellent feature. I replaced Facebook time with Twitter time a while back and found it even more addicting (because the talent pool is much better and more real-time, and there's an extra sunk-cost fallacy going on with the amount of work required to find good content).
But even more recently, I've been purposefully logging out of Twitter a lot more (and have replaced that with YouTube). Logging back into Twitter now, I see that the "content" there feels less relevant and more boring. This is great for productivity. I just gotta curb the YouTube now - at least with that I can just shunt everything to "Watch Later".
Alright, time to log out of hacker news too.
They do this through a few devious practices, such as the spin doctoring discussed here. One other thing that they do is instead of the option being a check box, it is a selection between two radio buttons and you explicitly have to choose one of them. I suppose this is actually a violation of the GDPR, since it should be disabled by default.
You don't lose value from facebook at all by not opting in. "Show ads that are relevant to me," is an arrogant statement. The actual statement is "Track my browsing to show ads that Facebook believes are relevant to me." I don't use Facebook for the targeted ads, I use it to infrequently receive news about people I know spread out across the globe.
I more was curious of whether the history cleared with Clear History are primary markers for ad targeting or if other data is used, and in reality if enough users don't clear their data but have similar data fingerprints (the non-Clear History data) then Facebook could still present assumptions to target by for those who do clear their history regularly, e.g. it will be a moot point up until say 40% of people regularly are clearing their history and therefore can no longer accurately enough make those assumptions.
Not at all, the NN that does ad targeting has already been trained on the data. Deleting it will make no difference (assuming you believe they actually will delete it)
So even if you delete everything you see, if an old friend who disabled their account re-enables it, there's a fresh batch of content about you.
If Facebook refuses to do the deleting thing for an (actual) EU citizen because they claim their location tracking shows they aren't located within the EU, they are going to have a problem.
If, however, the EU citizen selects in their profile that they live in the US, and then FB refuses to delete their data, the courts are probably going to look favourably on them, cause the user explicitly said so.
Since FB most definitely is absolutely, unforgivably, NOT allowed to request or handle the nationality data in EU passports, for purposes of being a EU citizen, they're pretty much going to have to rely that you're whatever nationality you say that you are.
The UX is useless by design to make it really hard to bulk delete, the backend is shitty and you can't see your content on friend's walls that disabled their account.
It is bad to the point that you wonder if it is on purpose. My guess is that it is. "Shitty product" as a deterrent to deletion.
Try building a scalable database to billions of users on ad revenue and make it retrieve all data from years ago within the time constraints that users want to see newsfeed items in, you'll see ;)
I mostly used the Activity Log (button at the top of your profile page) to do the deletion. There are filters there so you can see the different types of interactions. Removing them is different, e.g. Delete vs Unlike.
During the process, I did notice things appearing which had previously not appeared, so that definitely does happen. I kept going back to see if there was new stuff to delete. The whole process took me about 3 months.
The plot twist is that this all happened over 6 months ago. My profile has been empty the whole time, until sometime within the past couple of weeks, where posts have started to re-appear.
While it did a better job, despite my activity feed being clear, I'm still seeing a lot of posts.
The rub is that I can delete posts that show up from 2008, but that same post will show up on refresh.
Looks like I'm moving to Europe for a day in a few months.
I'm not defending Facebook machiavellian tactics but knowing that no code base is perfect and also that even FB is understaffed, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's a weird change in dynamic when you think about it, because people were too afraid of the "real" so to say. I wrote a post about this years ago. I'm not sure if I entirely still stand behind it, but I'll leave it here anyway:
The photos your friends uploaded of you from your college days will still be there, but you will be untagged and can turn on tag approvals.
A very real threat against users who delete their accounts is that a scammer will re-create the account, and re-friend your former network, in order to defraud your friends. The account uses your name and photos and is under their control.
FB can't tell the difference between you and an impersonator.
Now, how they even have the data to conclude that you're "impersonating" your deleted self is a fascinating question. Shadow profiles? And yet if FB didn't do anything about this, it would be even worse for people who leave Facebook.
They should get you to send a picture of your passport on signup to verify that it's you.
Likewise, if people were friends/connections on Facebook when you posted something to them, would you care if they were findable by them (they presumably could save a record of everything their friends published privately), and new friends/connections are prevented from seeing that past content?
I agree there's value in separating what people in new chapters of your life see vs. the old chapters in your life where you weren't as evolved or nuanced (potentially known as inane crap). Just trying to get an understanding of nuances if you're willing to share your take.
I get that the legal issues are different, and that there's no requirement that Facebook provide this functionality, but they already provide some limited control via deleting accounts and individual posts, so I dont think it's unreasonable to expect.
Thanks for responding.
How would you feel if Facebook provided them a tool to help with that?
How would you feel if Facebook did that automatically as a courtesy to them?
So, even if Facebook offered such a feature, I wouldn't have much faith that it actually worked.
Also, it's Facebook. They can figure it out, they just don't want to.
The announcement also reads to me as if the "clearing" doesn't even do what people may expect it to do:
> Once we roll out this update, you'll be able to see information about the apps and websites you've interacted with, and you'll be able to clear this information from your account.
This sounds to me as if they still keep the information and just don't associate it with your account anymore.
You are making it sound like he is doing it because of the goodness of his heart, or to please his user. He literally didn't have any choice.
Most people likely don’t remember this, but Facebook ads were a joke among the marketing community when they were first introduced. I’d have to find it, but one study produced before the Facebook pixel was introduced showed that less than 6% of Facebook advertisers had any kind of ROI from their Facebook ad spend. The pixel is one of a handful of things they created that turned this around - all of a sudden, people saw ads for things they were already interested in. If the pixel is effectively gone, much of Facebook’s revenue will go with it.
The recent upheaval over privacy didn’t make me worry about Facebook’s future or the stock price. Revenue was still coming in, and as Eric Schmidt says, “revenue solves all known problems” . But this marks the beginning of Facebook’s end as a cash cow. What does a post-revenue Facebook look like?
I would short the stock - now.
They apparently announced that they’re getting into online dating today. Maybe the plan is to knowingly decimate the ad platform and charge for dating at some point. They’ll have massive layoffs and have to sell datacenters, but could at least keep the lights on for a few remaining employees managing the dating service.
They'll make the "Clear History" feature a multi step process that's tucked away in a configurations pane, miles away from what the common user will seek out and use on a regular basis.
And, like this article does, they'll randomly pop up Zuckerberg's face at you.
I don't think it would have a significant negative impact on Facebook at all. I see the value of ad networks as primarily resulting from two features: Having a large audience (network), and knowing the audience well (targeted ads).
Facebook will still have a large audience if people keep using it, even if they all delete their information, so a large audience is a given.
Knowing an audience has two large pieces, identity (i.e. you're user X) and derived identity data, i.e. people interested in HN are interested in tech. The biggest use of all this data is associating users together. If all my data across all the internet was deleted immediately, I bet Google et. al would be able to uniquely identify me within a few days, they wouldn't know I'm the same person whose data was just deleted, but they'd know a wealth of targeting information about me again, and within a few years I'd bet they'd know me just as well as they do now.
My web usage is pretty routine, and humans in general are pretty routine, so I would expect it to generally hold that, without explicit effort to the contrary, we'd all be pretty easily re-identified (at least as much as advertisers are concerned) after deleting our information, and sure, I won't be searching for that exact search query because now my git-fu has improved, but I'm still going to be doing things that identify me as someone interested in and/or using git.
Facebook is going to keep all the derived data from people, and that data is going to allow them to very easily re-target anyone once they have a good feel for what their interests are. And I can't imagine a more transparent display of interests than activity on a social network, it's almost explicitly interest-bound.
All I can tell you is that Facebook had a large audience before the pixel, and few advertisers were able to generate ROI from Facebook ads. Now he is suggesting that we will return to this state. Showing irrelevant ads to people based upon basic things - like being one of 150 million people that like Coke’s Facebook page - just flatly doesn’t work.
So it will remove a tenth of the revenue? (decem = "ten")
1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.
"the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness"
Nobody uses the word in that way anymore, but some people want to show how clever they are, so they bring it up.
That's what he meant when he said it will worsen your experience right? :-)
And God knows that Zuckerberg’s lifestyle wouldn’t change much if he was only a “simple” billionaire instead of a multi-billionaire ;)
And I really want to see how many websites block EU traffic :)
I bet that depends on how you define "good".
muddling newsfeed and ad targeting would make both systems unnecessarily complicated.
The experience using Facebook without them exploiting knowledge of my "preferences" is substantially better.
Granted, I'm running ad blockers, so most of the low-value advertising on FB was already blocked.
I'm all for better control of my data, but there needs to be some balance so the ads I see are still relevant and not acai berries super juices and Hot Local Singles In My Area.
I understand that an ad model is what allows me to do many things I do on the internet without cost. Now, if I have to choose between an ad model that shows me "Dewalt Tools 25% off" (Something I am interested in) or "Gluten Free Bread" (something I'm not interested in), I will select the former.
People can pin this on Facebook all day, but that's the same bullshit every user-productizing company spews. That the best experience is the one they design, which necessarily includes tracking, ads, and half of the dark patterns in the book.
Once this rolls out, I'm going to be posting instructions to my feed. One of the only reasons I still keep Facebook around is to publicize articles critical of social media and stuff like this.
Case in point: If you're not logged in to the FB tracking network, after 5 seconds of reading, you get surprised by this "funny" jump scare: https://i.imgur.com/PCQOo8N.png
That is deliberately worsening the experience. If you click the close-button (helpfully labelled "Not now"), it is replaced with a sticky footer that takes 33% of your screen (depending on your window size and zoom setting).
Mark, I can't believe this. Some of the questions you were asked were 'yes or no' questions and you couldn't even do that.
While, yes, some of the answers (not the 'yes or no' ones) could have been clearer, there were some questions you just didn't answer at all.
For instance: are whales fish? That's a simple yes or no question, right? http://inference-review.com/article/on-being-a-fish
Pretty much any question on the topic is too complex for a simple yes/no. And it's abundantly clear to me that 99% of the general public just do not understand that at all. Most people (senators included) were just looking for him to say something damning which they can endlessly bring up in the future.
I don't believe Mark got into this position out of malice. Facebook just grew naturally over time and turned into the beast it is today. How many times have you been building an app and thought "If only I knew <x> about my users I could provide <really cool feature>"?. Each one of these little steps encroaching on user privacy is small and hard to notice for the users and even for the engineers. But over time they add up and at some point there is an "oh shit" moment where you realise what you have.
Yes, some of us have been warning about this for _over a decade_. But the benefits clearly outweighed the costs in the eyes of the users. Only now are the general public starting to realise what the actual costs are.
You make a good point. While Mark was presented with a similar situation, the answer to the question, "Are whales fish?" could be, "That isn't a 'yes-or-no' question because [reason]," as opposed to, "I'll have my team follow up with you after my congressional hearing."
That's not a bug, it's a feature! I've had my browser set up to nuke everything on shutdown as far as I can remember. Yes you have to log back for sites you want to interact non-anonymously but I consider it the sane default.
Tracking and privacy aside, you'll likely save some money too as not being logged into shopping sites raises the barrier to ordering pointless crap.
I have this and only log into GMail in a private window (I would do the same for FB if I used it). It's a bit of a hassle, especially since I've enabled 2FA, but it's become a habit and not that much of a hassle (I leave the private window open).
It's a failsafe against bugs in the private browser implementation and provides a further separation of authenticated vs anonymous.
Meanwhile, a loud minority (mostly from outside the EU) complains "why don't you respect their best efforts?" -- because it's too little, too late, this law has been on the horizon for years, but instead of preparing they've been increasing their data harvesting efforts, only making it harder for themselves to actually comply when it finally passed.
And it will come. It will take years, but it will come.
This (or any other Facebook feature/change) wouldn’t be such a big deal if Facebook weren’t a monopoly which actively takes steps to remain one. Namely,
- being a closed platform with no easy way to migrate your data to another platform
- buying out the competition
As long as the above is true I consider Facebook as acting against its users’ interests, regardless of any specific feature.
Yeah but they're very obviously refraining from outright stating "we only do this because GDPR forces us to".
> What would you do with them?
Federate it in a privacy-respecting way among different services, obviously.
And you won't need to learn python, because cool tools to do cool stuff with your facebook data will be popular enough to download as apps.