New Book Argues Silicon Valley Will Lead Us to Our Doom (sandiegouniontribune.com) 202
Long-time Slashdot reader Zorro quotes the San Diego Union-Tribune:
To many Americans, large technology firms embody much of what's good about the modern world. Franklin Foer has a different perspective. In his new book, "World Without Mind," the veteran journalist lays out a more ominous view of where Big Tech would like to take us -- in many ways, already has taken us... These firms have a program: to make the world less private, less individual, less creative, less human... Big Tech has imposed its will on the resident population with neither our input nor our permission.
The reviewer summarizes the book's argument as "Once hooked, consumers are robbed of choice, milked for profit, deprived of privacy and made the subjects of stealth social engineering experiments."
Interestingly, Foer was fired from The New Republic in 2014 by its new publisher -- Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes -- and Foer's new book includes strong criticism of the way companies are assembling detailed profiles on their users. "They have built their empires by pulverizing privacy; they will further ensconce themselves by pushing boundaries, by taking even more invasive steps that build toward an even more complete portrait of us."
The reviewer summarizes the book's argument as "Once hooked, consumers are robbed of choice, milked for profit, deprived of privacy and made the subjects of stealth social engineering experiments."
Interestingly, Foer was fired from The New Republic in 2014 by its new publisher -- Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes -- and Foer's new book includes strong criticism of the way companies are assembling detailed profiles on their users. "They have built their empires by pulverizing privacy; they will further ensconce themselves by pushing boundaries, by taking even more invasive steps that build toward an even more complete portrait of us."
Only if we let them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:4)
I only expose what I want myself in social metworks. in return I occasionally get a fuck or a job offer. Feels like a good deal to me (note: I never upload pics and rarely report my position).
Re: (Score:2)
I occasionally get a fuck... and rarely report my position
For that we thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, many millions of years ago, someone argued coming down from the trees will lead us to our doom...
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2)
Sounds like a better deal than what you're getting.
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:4, Insightful)
That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.
Ignorant little snotball (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure somewhere among them there's a group dedicated to learning Latin. Why not join it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So does that joke.
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:5, Interesting)
That worked as a solution *before* they got so big. Now they are everywhere and are unavoidable. If you want to join ANY group or contribute to ANY non-profit, communicate, meetup, collaborate, etc. They have Google Forms, Google Docs, Facebook Groups, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is no way to avoid it. The entire world was dumb enough to hand over power to these asshats.
Did anyone ever notice, back in 2001, that every group you communicated or traded with (as list-d above) – all suddenly wanted your cell phone number, when they never had before? Did anyone else notice this sudden change?
Consumer-data firms absolutely love cell phone numbers. They are a unique identifier that is not illegal to use (as SSN & CC# are). Cell phone numbers are an extremely powerful correlate to whatever other little scraps if data might accompany it.
I stopped giving my phone number out to anyone unless it was central to the relationship. For about 10 years. Well, now, big data is very big, and everybody and their mother is selling your info, which is later correlated with other data, and your cell phone number is one of the most high-confidence correlates. I have given up.
YOU DO HAVE A FB PROFILE, even if you never created one. They follow people around the web (via cookies, etc.), and build a profile of you whether you like it or not. Sign up, and you might see how creepy-much they have.
There are hundreds of these 'Consumer-behavior Aggregating Companies', and they are effectively uncontrolled. It is a new industry. Compare them to the three credit agencies are heavily regulated. See how it gets scary?
John Oliver did an informative piece on these shady companies within the last year. Very informative.
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2)
What a load of horseshit.
1. Those large companies still have to follow laws of the land, which are written and decided upon by our chosen representatives (at least here in the US). Remember, it's your vote that puts them there collectively.
2. You don't have to join anything or participate in shit. You can if you want to, but you don't have to. Most people have. Your complaining because the herd went in one direction and you don't want to follow, but you don't want to be alone? Take your self-riteous horsesh
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Companies can also lobby to change laws with their capital and influence, something that the average Joe couldn't compete with equally.
2. It's not about not using services anymore honestly. Even if you don't have a social media account your family could be posting pictures and videos of you online for the algorithms to collect. Web browsers collect info on everything you search online pretty well. You'd be surprised what these companies have on you. You'd also be surprised at how good these companies ha
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have friends? Family? People you just happen to know?
The problem is that it's becoming increasingly impossible to avoid being on social media, even if you never use it yourself. Other people posting pictures of you, combined with facial recognition, means it's possible for social media networks to know quite a bit about you without you ever using them yourself.
As data mining technique improve, this is only going to get worse. Simply existing is going to be enough for companies to build profiles on you, regardless of whether you yourself use their services. It's not enough to not use the services yourself, you need to make sure no one you know ever posts anything about you as well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's a difference between acknowledging that surveillance exists and willingly participating in your own surveillance.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you have friends? Family? People you just happen to know?
No of course not. It's impossible for me to have any of those because I don't have a Facebook account.
Listening to the hopelessly addicted trying to justify their addiction is heartbreaking. The hook for social media is a deep feeling of being isolated and left out if you ever dare leave. This singular fact is what keeps many who see the problem, want to stop and do something more productive and interesting with their time keep coming back for another hit time and time again.
The problem is that it's becoming increasingly impossible to avoid being on social media, even if you never use it yourself.
Tell me about it... phones ke
Re: (Score:3)
It's only potentially a privacy violation if you can be readily identified anyway. A photo of a random person taken at an unspecified date and time could ostensibly be a photo of any of thousands of people who have, at some point in the past, looked enough like that photo when shot at that angle, so long as those people have been in that city at the right time of year between when the building in the background was built and torn down. If there are no trees, then the time of year doesn't matter. If ther
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations on making yourself an outcast. I'm against the whole craze myself but what can one do when the vast majority has already decided? You want to shut yourself out, it's your right but it doesn't make any difference. The war for privacy is over and we lost. Staying out counts only as sulking, they already have your profile whether you like it or not. You have to ask yourself, as I did, is it worth it? Becoming an outcast in the name of a principle nobody cares for?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Congratulations on making yourself an outcast. I'm against the whole craze myself but what can one do when the vast majority has already decided?
I am amazed to see such sentiments expressed on /. Here I was thinking that slashdotters were inner-directed, free-thinking, independent minds. But apparently at least one is just a herd animal.
Try visiting
https://thoreau.eserver.org/ [eserver.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Here I was thinking that slashdotters were inner-directed, free-thinking, independent minds. But apparently at least one is just a herd animal.
We are herd animals. Marketers, publicists, public relations peoples, sales people, politicians, clergy, tel-evangelists, and what have you, use that fact to their advantage. Slashdotters are some of the biggest herd animals. Watch this: Elon Musk is not an innovative genius. He has done nothing to deserve that reputation - even though his publicists did a very good job in creating that image of him. See what happens next - and no, I really think that.
The only way to resist manipulation is to accept that
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say they're privacy oriented, like I am. What can you do? The same thing that people have done in the past, refuse to participate in it. Something is only lost when you give up, as it stands there is no "social media" presence for me out there. I don't exist at all among social media networks or anything else. It's not hard to do and still keep a large enough social and work network. If anything, I see more people going back to face-to-face social networking because they're tired of all the inane, pointless, bullshit drama that happens on every single platform.
You have to ask yourself, as I did, is it worth it? Becoming an outcast in the name of a principle nobody cares for?
Sure is. The real question is, are you a person who can hang onto their principals while others are throwing theirs to the wind?
Re: (Score:1)
Sure is. The real question is, are you a person who can hang onto their principals while others are throwing theirs to the wind?
Maybe people shouldn't be throwing their principals into the wind. It's the principle of it.
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:5, Informative)
You have a presence in social media even if you've never created an account. You know those little 'f' icons you see on websites which link back to Facebook? They're not a link. They're a script which sets a cookie or examines your cookies to uniquely identify your computer. When you visit slashdot, that 'f' icon in the upper right tells Facebook that user #51853601342 has visited slashdot. And they add it to their database with all other sites user #51853601342.
Then one day a friend of yours sends you a Facebook invite via email. You happen to click on it to delete it (instead of doing a select-delete) which causes it to load in your browser, and now Facebook knows that user #51853601342 is yourname@gmail.com. They start cross-referencing your name with comments, other friend requests, public documents, etc. And now Facebook knows who you are, where you live, who your family is, who your friends are, what you look like (thanks to photo face ID), where you work, who your co-workers are, and how much you make. All without you having an account.
It's not enough to avoid creating social media accounts. You also have to run script blockers specifically targeting these tracking scripts (e.g. Ghostery) and/or browse in incognito mode at all times.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, Facebook may be currently convinced I'm a hummingbird. Employers where I live have a tendency towards discriminating against people without Facebook accounts, so...
There's a place in the area which sells angel statues that are utterly perfect if you ever want to stick an angel statue outside a friend's window at night. I'm thinking of getting a picture of one and replacing my profile pic with that, possibly talking some friends into taking some pictures so we can tag 'em as me before
Re: (Score:2)
You have a presence in social media even if you've never created an account. You know those little 'f' icons you see on websites which link back to Facebook? They're not a link. They're a script which sets a cookie or examines your cookies to uniquely identify your computer. When you visit slashdot, that 'f' icon in the upper right tells Facebook that user #51853601342 has visited slashdot. And they add it to their database with all other sites user #51853601342.
You're assuming that blocking those is difficult, they're not. Ublock origin refuses to accept those cookies right off the bat, you can even go further if you want to use something like ghostery.
Then one day a friend of yours sends you a Facebook invite via email. You happen to click on it to delete it (instead of doing a select-delete) which causes it to load in your browser, and now Facebook knows that user #51853601342 is yourname@gmail.com. They start cross-referencing your name with comments, other friend requests, public documents, etc. And now Facebook knows who you are, where you live, who your family is, who your friends are, what you look like (thanks to photo face ID), where you work, who your co-workers are, and how much you make. All without you having an account.
Which is actually illegal in the country I live in. Facebook was threatened with $10m/day fines a few years ago for doing it, and they don't. The privacy commissioners office has been rather diligent in that. Maybe you need to fix the privacy laws in the country you live?
FYI incognito mode doesn't work as well a
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal in the whole of the EU, I think the biggest combined economy in the world most definitely is big enough to make a difference. No US tech company is going to give up the opportunity to operate in the wealthiest single market in the world.
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2)
it's almost as if... you don't have to do dumb things just because most other people do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really just a fad. Giving up all your privacy isn't going to be the norm forever. People will wise up. I mean all of us were on networks before it was cool and we learned that its dangerous to give out personal info. Eventually, the normies will learn that too.
The same way they learned how to use GUI's, web browsers and even the mouse. Just takes them time because they aren't really technical so they dont get the technology and ramifications at first glance.
People will grow to fear databases as I do
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:1)
What you get is... (things I've gotten as a result of using social media)
Job
Laid (twice!)
Made new friends, both local and far away
Connected again with old friends
Favors from people helping me to build my business
Learned about new useful websites and aps
Introduced to new products that I eventually bought
Planning a vacation with my old friend from England I would have no other way of contacting otherwise (hopefully getting laid on that on too!)
Just general enjoying conversations
I understand the privacy impl
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:1)
Same AC.
About the privacy stuff, why should I fucking care? I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care. And besides, it's not like I'm revealing any extremely dark secrets on there.
About the friend on England, international calls and texts are still really expensive, email is slow, and snail mail? Expensive and extremely slow. Fb and whatsapp are convenient, free, and instantaneous. Can't beat that.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care.
And you never will be, provided that your philosophies and ambitions are in any way opposed by these large (and growing) corporations. You've helpfully provided them with the ammunition to spin whatever story they want about you and publicize this far and wide, should you ever become a problem for them.
Would you like to run for office or spearhead a political movement? It had better be compatible with the corporate charter of this small handful of corporations, or they'll sink it before it leaves port.
Infor
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
About the privacy stuff, why should I fucking care? I'm not important enough for anyone who can see my conversations at Facebook to really care. And besides, it's not like I'm revealing any extremely dark secrets on there.
You're right about that, for now. Do you know how this information about yourself will be used in 10 years? Or how it could be used? Because the only reason you're not important enough right now is because the cost of exploiting your information is too high. That will change.
Re: (Score:2)
Just try to find a distant phone number without the help of social media. This was not easy even back in the days when telcos printed phone books, which could be found in larger libraries. A carefully controlled release of contact information to social media is the best way to help other people find you, and you to find them. Facebook was originally designed as a way for school alumni to find each other for reunions.
When we overshare on social media, the adverse consequences are our own fault. Just like all
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:5, Interesting)
> Most HR offices will trash your resume if they can't find your facebook page.
Is there *anyone* who works in HR who can actually confirm a resume trashed for lack of social media contacts? This sounds like a folk-tale to me, but then perhaps the world has changed.
I know people who've been approached via Linked-In to good effect, but I've never heard of anyone whose failed to get an interview because they don't have a Linked-In (or FB) profile (and I work in tech).
Re: (Score:2)
Right - I get having a *bad* social media presence can harm you. Companies can be expected to use whatever information they can find out about you. I also get that having a social media presence may get you offers that you might not have otherwise received.
But my question is whether NOT having a profile will *actively* hurt you, and this article mentioned nothing about that.
I strongly suspect that we're not quite at the point where you are expected to provide your FaceBook identity on your resume. I don'
Re: (Score:2)
No one really 'finds' my facebook page.
Everything is set to private and I only accept friend requests from RL friends and Aikidoka, I somewhat know.
If a HR department would access FB pages of applicants they would be sued into oblivion, literally. The people working there, doing it would risk to be unemployable for life as HR people.
No idea if you are a retard or live in a fucked up country where such behaviour could/would be legal :)
Re:Only if we let them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, it may be too late. We've already handed over control of almost all public discourse to private companies, companies which are free to censor that discourse at will. They're already using that power to censor ideas from the right that they disagree with. And many leftists are celebrating that, championing it even. But that's a mistake they'll regret.
You see, what these anti-"hate speech" leftists have failed to consider is "what ideas are going to be censored next?" Do you really think that this handful of super-powerful corporations who you've ceded control to are going to tolerate anti-capitalist rhetoric, or calls for higher wages, worker rights, higher corporate taxes, and unions? Ha, not for long! And you've been the one who championed them having the the right to censor, never thinking that power could be turned against YOU too. But once they've banned the "Nazis" you can bet they'll come after the "Communists" and "Socialists" next. And you Bernie bros will end up just as cut off from all the major social media outlets as your bad-guy-du-jour Milo Yianopolis.
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2, Insightful)
As if the right wing never supported corporatism and censorship
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As if the right wing never supported corporatism and censorship
Yes, and it's a mistake for either side. The right has taken an unfortunate "Private business should be free to do anything it wants" attitude that has played a role in this shitty situation too.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that you also expose your information just by existing, unless everyone else you interact with ALSO abstains from the use of social media.
And you probably have a credit card, and a driver's license. Maybe you entered a contest once.
I try to stay out as best I can, but last year someone else tagged me in a photo and now I am easily Googled. Of course, there were already shadow profiles of me out there, but now they have my face, and who knows how many public sources of faces they'll be scann
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has no magical power to extract information from your mind that you didn't explicitly hand over to it. The choice is yours.
Re: (Score:2)
But they do have the power to extract information about you that other people submit. If you have any friends or family who are keen Facebook users, then the chances are they already have a shadow profile which contains a reasonably accurate (likely incomplete) fiends list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Only if we let them... (Score:2)
I myself HAVE twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. accounts and they have no power over me whatsoever. People do not need to fear such things, you can always reveal as much or as little as you choose.
I've said it here before (Score:4)
If you aren't paying for the product you are the product.
Re:I've said it here before (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not true. Sometimes you pay for the product but you are still the product.
Re: (Score:1)
You made an assumption, at no point did I imply anything about the OP. My point was about how silicon valley operates, not the submitter. The failure is yours.
Re: (Score:2)
"If" != "If - and only if -".
If you're a pig, you're a mammal. Correct.
If - and only if - you're a pig, you're a mammal. Wrong, because cows.
AC is right and you're wrong. STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Sometimes you pay for the product but you are still the product.
True enough. Epson is the prime example. Its CEO called inkjets "vending machines for ink."
Asshole.
Re: (Score:1)
Essay by the author in the Washington Post (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All rook endgames are drawn.
point of no return (Score:2)
What's to be done about it? Nothing, really... it's better than television as a narcotic to keep the masses sedated, it allows the mega-corporations to target market like never before, and the governments are happy with their automated, mostly voluntary, data collection behemoth.
Re: (Score:1)
My understanding was that "everything is permitted in Italy, whether it is forbidden or not".
E.g. "In Milan, traffic lights are instructions; in Rome, they are suggestions; in Naples, they are Christmas decorations".
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I trusted these guys, I had to pick between being able to shoot in the dark or use a flashlight to see what was going to kill me.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I trusted these guys, I had to pick between being able to shoot in the dark or use a flashlight to see what was going to kill me.
Look. Just because space marines are too stupid to use duct tape to attach the flashlight to their guns, doesn't mean they're all stupid. Just most of them, which explains the entire hellspawn-take-over-mars and earth thing.
everything leads us to our doom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shadows and dust...and products.
Believe in science (Score:2)
As far as that goes, I'll go with hoping Richard Feynman is resurrected. At least people actually paid attention to his messages rather than just posturing and pretending.
Re: believe in God. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm chasing him right now. Didn't mow the lawn last week. No rain excuse.
My own personal Jesus, someone to mow, edge and rake...
Solution in the summary. (Score:5, Informative)
"Once hooked, consumers are robbed of choice, milked for profit, deprived of privacy and made the subjects of stealth social engineering experiments."
Now that you know it's addictive, you can simply not use what they are offering. Of course if you are already hooked then you should leave them behind. If that means quitting social media completely, you quit that shit. If that means not using Android or iOS then get a smartphone that lets you choose a libre mobile OS [itsfoss.com] or *gasp* don't use a smartphone. Hell, if that means going off the power grid you go invest in some solar panels and batteries, dammit! ;)
If you don't like your situation, you change it, you don't sit around and cry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you know it's addictive, you can simply not use what they are offering. Of course if you are already hooked then you should leave them behind. If that means quitting social media completely, you quit that shit. If that means not using Android or iOS then get a smartphone that lets you choose a libre mobile OS or *gasp* don't use a smartphone.
Or don't have friends, then you won't have this problem at all. Seriously though, maybe /.'ers are so socially inept they haven't registered but social media has fundamentally altered the expected social interaction. People don't send mails, texts, write on their blog or call/meet to say it in person, they make a Facebook post and expect the people who are interested enough to care to read it. I refuse to use Facebook, though I got badgered into having an account to answer invitations and I've noticed I'm a
Re: (Score:2)
Convenience always wins.
FB, et al has made it more convenient to socialize, and if I'm the hold out (and I am), it's because I'm deliberately choosing to make it less convenient for all my friends to socialize with me.
I'd complain, but it comes across to me as being the only one who hasn't moved downtown from the suburbs, and then me whining that no-one drops in.
As with everything, it's weighing the costs vs. the benefits. The costs are the same for everyone who joins, but the benefit for those who, like m
Re: (Score:2)
maybe /.'ers are so socially inept they haven't registered but social media has fundamentally altered the expected social interaction. People don't send mails, texts, write on their blog or call/meet to say it in person, they make a Facebook post and expect the people who are interested enough to care to read it.
Interesting. That's not how my social circle works. Anyway, if you absolutely must have an online social circle then you should use something that isn't facebook. There are plenty of decentralized platforms as well as platforms you can host yourself that can manage more people than you'll ever meet. Slap it on a secure VPS and have your friends use it.
Re: (Score:2)
WSJ just ran article from noted phycologist that kids are better off having one or two friends they care about than fostering attention from a whole group.
Big Tech? (Score:1)
That term is new on me, but maybe I'm not keeping up with things like that. Whenever some refers to a subject as Big XXXX (Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.) you should be very skeptical of everything they say.
It's no small irony that the first link in the summary brings you to Amazon's page for the book. Although I suppose we should expect that in a slashvertisement for a book.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whenever some refers to a subject as Big XXXX (Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.) you should be very skeptical of everything they say.
In the cases of Big Oil and Big Pharma, they clearly and unabashedly operate as cartels in their respective domains. It's much less clear that there is anything like that operating in technology. The bar to entry for new software is very, very low.
Re: (Score:2)
These firms have a program: to make the world less private, less individual, less creative, less human... Big Tech has imposed its will on the resident population
And if you think you can start a new search engine, social media site, or shopping site to compete with Google, Facebook, or Amazon - good luck.
Re: Big Tech? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they'll just buy you (Score:2)
I'm less worried about losing privacy than I am about the affects of wealth inequality and having that much money/power at the top. Most people don't abuse privacy for fun, they do it to take all the world's money for themselves. Solve income inequality and the p
Re: (Score:2)
But with a few companies having a quite complete picture about everything you are up online, it will be more and more difficult to develop something revolutionary (pardon: disruptive) without them noticing. And with their superior manpower they might be able to beat any small group of developers to market. [bold mine]
This is why I have convinced countless colleagues to STOP using DropBox for Group-sharing on projects. DropBox indexes every file and its contents. Why should they get to spy on my R&D? Imagine that you're a researcher or small-business owner, with 'Trade Secret' or Patentable stuff that you want to keep private... Your patent-able ideas could be easily stolen. Or if you have a small-business grant (SBIR/STTR), it is quite likely that the funding agency has required some kind of information contr
Re: (Score:2)
--I wish I had modpoints today. Mod parent up please!
DNF (Score:2)
Who will lead us to Duke Nukem Forever?
Just spotted it, DNF also stands for Did Not Finish.
I don't use social media (Score:2)
But I gotta say, he's not wrong.
how dumb (Score:2)
Their program isn't to make the world less private per se; it's to make money. The means by which they make money happens to be making the world less private. He fails to deal with the fact that this forfeit of privacy is voluntary and that those who forfeit some amount of privacy also get something in return. It's a transaction
Re: (Score:2)
First, you don't need Facebook for that. 30 years ago someone could have taken my picture, printed up a bunch of flyers, and plastered it all over Manhattan. More recently, you still don't need Facebook; all you need is the world wide web and, possibly, search engines. Would you do away with those?
Another question I'd ask is: how is this even an invasion of my privacy? If someone takes a picture of me in public th
Re: (Score:2)
Another question I'd ask is: how is this even an invasion of my privacy? If someone takes a picture of me in public then I have no expectation of privacy. If they take a picture of me in private, potentially one that I'd prefer not be shared, then I'd say the fault lies with the individual who shared it and not the medium used to share
These no expectation of privacy arguments are mostly nonsense. Just because something happens in public does not grant everyone carte blanch to do whatever the f**** they please with that information.
Try following someone around in public all day and see what happens.
Try taking a picture of some random bikini chick on the beach, post it creeper magazine and see what happens.
Just because you see or overhear something in public does not grant you some magical right to do with it as you please without repercu
Re: how dumb (Score:2)
The law generally grants one the legal right to do with it what one pleases. So no legal repercussions. I agree it's not magical; it just stems from statutes and legal precedent. May vary by state if you live in the U.S.
Guy doesn't get evolution (Score:1)
If he was a paramecium, he'd be arguing against multicellularity on all the same points.
Read the New Yorker article on TNR's demise (Score:2)
The article on The New Republic's collapse after its buyout by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes describes how Foer's being ousted as editor was what prompted this book. The problem was a bicoastal clash of cultures: the writers at the magazine, proud curators of a hundred-year tradition of in-depth coverage of topics, suddenly faced a pack of young interlopers spouting Silicon Valley marketing buzzwords. It wasn't long before an article critical of hedge fund bro culture was spiked in the face of a financin
Ad-driven revenue model... (Score:3)
...was the original problem here. Since 99% of all internet services are delivered "for free", primarily as a result of the internet's decentralized nature, the service providers had to find a way to make money. It went from banner ads to now mining all of your personal data for profit.
Why doesn't e.g. Netflix get mentioned with the GAFA quadruplet? Because you pay 9.99/month for Netflix, so Netflix doesn't care who your friends are and how to sell that to advertising companies. The problem is that even if people would now be willing to pay 9.99/month for Facebook, Facebook wouldn't want it that way - they've seen they can make much more massive profits by mining people's personal data. There's no going back now.
Not bad, interesting in parts (Score:2)
Sterile Society (Score:1)
Yet another of the many social issues presented on Slashdot that is big news to Americans, yet common sense to the rest of the (non-English-speaking) planet who simply miss out on "the digital life" sterile Americana has to offer nowadays.
The world is ending v. 2000000.0 (Score:1)
Somehow I think we'll survive. Some societies thought (and think) you can't live without honor, hence the execution of rape victims and rituals of suicide. Now we think we can't live without privacy. I'll bet we can.
Are universe is doomed.. (Score:2)
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooomed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
and of course I used the wrong 'Are'. sigh,