Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Should Regulators Force Facebook To Ship a 'Start Over' Button For Users? (hunterwalk.com) 109

Posted by msmash from the modest-proposal dept.
Hunter Walk: I don't really understand most of the proposals to "regulate" Facebook. There are some concrete proposals on the table regarding political ads and updating antitrust for the data age, but other punditry is largely consumer advocacy kabuki. For example, blunting the data Facebook can use to target ads or tune newsfeed hurts the user experience, and there's really no stable way to draw a line around what's appropriate versus not. These experiences are too fluid. But while I want keep the government out of the product design business, there's an alternate path which has merit: establish a baseline for the control a person has over their data on these systems. Today the platforms give their users a single choice: keep your account active or delete your account. Sure, some expose small amounts of ad targeting data and let you manipulate that, but on the whole they provide limited or no control over your ability to "start over." Want to delete all your tweets? You have to use a third party app. Want to delete all your Facebook posts? Good luck with that. Nope, once you're in the mousetrap, there's no way out except account suicide.

But is that really fair? Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today. And these services evolve -- did we think we'd be using Facebook as a primary source of news consumption and private messaging back when you were posting baby photos? Did you think they'd also own Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus and so on when you created accounts on those services? We're the frogs, slow boiling in the pot of water.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Regulators Force Facebook To Ship a 'Start Over' Button For Users? More

Should Regulators Force Facebook To Ship a 'Start Over' Button For Users?

Comments Filter:

  • There *is* an easy line to draw (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @10:09AM (#55804087)

    The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.

    Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.

    Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.

    That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.

    • Re:There *is* an easy line to draw (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @10:29AM (#55804143) Homepage
      It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account. Even if we assume that they fully complied with a request to delete an individual's account data per the EU regulations, that would only almost certainly only mean pressing reset on the stuff tied to the account and they'd continue collecting the rest perfectly legally because it's "anonymous". That this kind of data isn't actually anonymous and can readily be tied to a specific individual is pretty well established by now, yet they continue to gather vast mountains of data on people who never opted in *or* out, nor is there a simple way to request it be deleted because an individual can't easily link themselves to a given tracking ID.

      Be careful what you wish for on that as well. The fairly obvious solution would be legislation that forces companies to honour things like DoNotTrack, but given previous attempts in this area by the EU we'll probably end up with another fatally flawed implemention like the Cookie Directive and the endless series of prompts to allow them to set a cookie to say that you don't want them to set cookies.

      • Re:There *is* an easy line to draw (Score:5, Informative)

        by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @10:30AM (#55804145)

        It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account.

        That's not a loophole - that's just straight up illegal. As I said - it's an opt-in. Companies operating in the EU are not allowed to collect data on people without their consent.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Zocalo ( 252965 )
          Social media platforms are absolutely doing this kind of thing, even in the EU, and they get away with it because, as far as the letter of the law in many places is concerned, provided they store the data under a generic UID like "AdvertisingTargetProfile529313" applied behind the scenes rather than an actual name like "beelsebob", it's considered anonymous. The spirit of the law and lots of data analysis proving the contrary might say bullshit to that, but barring someone actually taking them to court ove

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DaMattster ( 977781 )

      The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.

      Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.

      Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.

      That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.

      Just because Facebook offers to delete all of your personal data upon account closure, does not mean that they will. If I had to guess, your data just gets moved to some obscure, internal server somewhere away from the public view. If you think otherwise, I have a 100 year old bridge in great condition to sell you.

      • The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.

        Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.

        Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.

        That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.

        Just because Facebook offers to delete all of your personal data upon account closure, does not mean that they will. If I had to guess, your data just gets moved to some obscure, internal server somewhere away from the public view. If you think otherwise, I have a 100 year old bridge in great condition to sell you.

        That is what they would do if it was just forced on them by consumer pressure. Since it is legally enforced, they do have to delete it. They also had to undo integration with WhatsApp because you are not allowed to buy personal data from other companies, including when you buy the entire company.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • New email? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It isn't particularly difficult to get a new email address to create a new Facebook account with and then deleting the old fb account.

  • Simple (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    DONT USE FACEBOOK AT ALL.

  • Started w/ "should regulators", not "should Facebo (Score:3, Informative)

    by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @10:25AM (#55804135) Journal

    I find it interesting that the author didn't ask "should Facebook have a 'start over' button?"

    The author seems unclear not only about what solution might work, but what problem they are trying to solve " antitrust ...
    data Facebook can use to target ads ... Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today."

    They aren't clear on what the problem is they are concerned about, they don't ask "should Facebook offer this option", indeed they don't ask "does Facebook offer a 'start over' button' (yes they do); they seem to start with the assumption that "regulators force - something" and go from there asking what it is that bureaucrats should force Facebook to do.

    I'll start with a different set of questions:

    Is it helpful for Facebook to offer a way to "start over", to delete all your posts and friend requests?

    Does this author realize there already is that option, and many people do that, without bureaucrats being brought in to force anything?

  • “Unpublishing” something is not possib (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cigaes ( 714444 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @10:31AM (#55804149) Homepage

    Something that has been published cannot, in all generality, be “unpublished”, be it a Facebook post, a tweet or a column in a high school newspaper. If you are high-profile enough to warrant the efforts, people will manage to dig dirt.

    But the article says: “Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today.” And another point: people make mistakes, people should not be judged on their mistakes but on how they react to them.

    The public needs to understand that, more than a “right to be forgotten” or a “start over” button: people's lives and careers should not be broken because of something they said ten years ago (provided they do not still say the same today) or a message they retracted after a few minutes.

    • Except what you're describing is often used as an evasive tool:

      Trump is a pussy grabbing entitled, self-described sexual abuser. [youtube.com]

      (Point being made, start deletion in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

      I do this a lot.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Except what you're describing is often used as an evasive tool:

        Trump is a pussy grabbing entitled, self-described sexual abuser. [youtube.com]

        (Point being made, start deletion in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

        I do this a lot.

        The Trump thing is not really relevant to the topic save that comparatively we knew a lot about Clinton, included decades of efforts to attack her. We knew and still know relatively little about Trump, not even how much his tax bill will make him. Basically if you know 20% about person A and 80% about person B, then you have to multiply all the bad stuff about person A by 4 to even have a rough guess about the person.

        As far as the Facebook reset, sure, why not? No such a reset wouldn't stop someone deter

        • FB would agree right away provided they can influence the regulatory language the right way. Then they'll keep the data but 'anonomized' with and undo feature for law enforcement/anti-terrorism/protecting the children. And here is the neat part, that info will become even more valuable so FB will be able to sell it to political opposition research firms (or reputation protection firms that are certainly not a disguised front for FB will sell 'protection'). This sounds like a gold mine that only gets bigger
    • I watched various documentaries about Facebook ruining lives, or at least making those lives harder. One of the examples was a party photo of an Irish politician before he became a politician. A yellow newspaper got wind of that photo and created a story from there. This one can happen to everyone, even non public personas. What I heard is that some HR companies do search for details in social media profiles.

      My motto is: Do not publish anything unless you gain something from it. Be boring about what you pu

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bidule ( 173941 )

      But the article says: “Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today.” And another point: people make mistakes, people should not be judged on their mistakes but on how they react to them.

      Speaker for the Dead.

      As you say, maybe we just just accept nobody is perfect. Everyone evolves over the year to become something different, you will constantly disagree with your younger self.

  • Wikipedia needs this too. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If you try to start over on Wikipedia you can get blocked for "sock-puppetry" by their abusive checkusers. I am still banned for minor vandalism over a decade ago but checkusers keep "hunting" me. Remember not to donate to Wikipedia despite their begging banners.

  • Preposterous! 2005, 2006, 2007, ... 2018 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop. That's what I said and I'm sticking to it! ;)

  • Facebook has no incentive to offer any kind of "Start Over" option or button. All of that data they've collected is almost worth more than gold and they've spent a lot of money in terms of connectivity and electricity to get that data. I don't even believe that when you delete your account, all of your data is removed. Corporations lie all of the time so I don't think Facebook gets rid of your data. They just simply move it out of the public eye. I truly hope that I am proved wrong in my assertion and that
  • As is that which is created from it's use including freedom of regular expression(s).
  • I am not a facebook expert but I hear them talking up their API all the time. Would it be possible to write an app under that structure that could accomplish this? The summary mentioned the existence of a third party app to do it with Twitter (which is obviously a completely separate system).

  • Permanence (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @11:06AM (#55804259)
    Should regulators force tattoo parlors to use erasable ink? Things I expressed in 2011 may not represent me today!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      No, but they can regulate who can legally get a tattoo in a way that's more enforceable than the click-through of if someone is old enough to sign up for facebook. Perhaps you should have to be provably 18 or over in order to get an account.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • " For example, blunting the data Facebook can use to target ads or tune newsfeed hurts the user experience, "

    The users of FB are the advertisement firms, you are the _product_ FB is selling.

  • By shutting down your account and starting a life.

    • By shutting down your account and starting a life.

      Even better, just ignore your account. Leave it in place, but never look at it, and never give a rat's ass what it's used for by others....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ELCouz ( 1338259 )
      What about your family always asking for your facebook account? What about your professional LinkedIn account (pretty much required if you work in IT)?..... Life ain't easy if you live under a rock....

      • My family fortunately doesn't even know what Facebook is. And even if they did, I couldn't give them my Facebook account. Well, I could, if they really enjoy looking at an empty page, because that's all that's there.

        My professional accounts are for exactly that: Professional life. You will hear about my professional exploits on there, and I honestly couldn't think of a way I could "reboot" this... There is a track record of my employment, and no way I could hide any of the jobs I did. I will not put anythin

  • There have been "Timeline cleaners" available for some time, to bad facebook changes their data structure so often that they stop working after days to weeks.

    My preference would be a balance of their corporate interest to sell me stuff (or my data to others) and my ability to control what is out there.

    Specifically, have an automatic age out at some user configurable threshold, as in delete anything over 1 year or whatever time table.

    (That would be actually delete it, not this "delete means you can no longer

  • facebook has become a necessary evil for many, heck even /. has a facebook section. I have an account to maintain contact with the family, I touch once a week or so.

    facebook doesn't delete accounts, didn't, doesn't matter; once bitten. Figuring I had more control with an active account I deleted 2 years worth of history.

    Now I get two pages of ads then met with a to continue further you need to make more friends, two pages is fine with me. I'll not be forced to "find friends".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )

      Facebook is not "necessary" for anything given any reasonable definition of "necessary." What you mean is that facebook makes some things easier than other methods, and if that's what you want, and the "price" is worth it to you, then so be it.

  • Good lesson (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    For the younger crowd - no part of life features a 'start over' button. It's just as well you learn to cope with that fact and make conscious choices that extend beyond the moment, instead. You WILL have to face this reality sooner or later whether you like it or not. Might as well get it over with.

  • Impossible, in fact. So, "starting over" at one outfit means all the others they've sold data to, including your intrusive government will also erase it, once notified? How many suns are in the sky on your planet? Even in places that have data privacy laws...the governments are very interested in keeping everything they can about you "for your safety" and so on - EU among them, and UK is about as bad as the US. And then there are the credit agencies, which appear to be above all laws, and hating them has

  • What he's saying is a TRAP (Score:3)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Monday December 25, 2017 @02:24PM (#55805089) Journal
    This 'Start Over' button this person speaks of is a trap. It would only really benefit platforms like Facebook. Why? Because the 'old' data the user wants to delete permanently just dilutes the entire database Facebook would have of that person; deleting the old data would actually improve the quality of the data for Facebook. I'm with other commentors: All data collection should be 'opt in', and it should be ILLEGAL to collect data on people otherwise.

    Also, this: PEOPLE DO NOT WANT 'TARGETED' ADS, EVER! Even if most people aren't very verbal about it, people HATE ads and would prefer to never see them.
    • Maybe not what you think. It's a flag you have something to hide (you think). Might as well wave that flag in front of a bull(sh*t) government or credit agency.
      • Ha, if that's a 'flag' as you say then I guess I need to sweep my house for listening devices regularly, because I bailed out of all 'social media' a long time ago, and pay for everything I buy in person with cash, so I must be a terrorist or drug dealer or something, right? Because I don't put my entire life under a microscope for them.
        • Quitting is far more of a flag than never having joined. Not that it stops whoever from collecting quite a lot - like say Experien, Equifax, your bank, the IRS...and tons of others in the normal course of events, much less this new regime.
          I'm just going by my experience and training in the arcane art of "traffic analysis" here. That "metadata" is all you need for that. It's even economical of computer cycles.
  • The model needs to change where YOU own YOUR data and information. So, when YOUR information is sold to advertisers, YOU get (at least) a piece of the profits from the online advertising. Sure, it might be pennies or fractions of pennies, but considering how much and often a person's data is bought and sold, it'd add up.
  • Or just a script, the easiest would probably be imacros. All its doing is just deleting posts. Theres a great API for developers on FB but you need some legit credentials for it lol

  • Should have thought of that before you voluntarily gave all your personal information to a random company to do with as they please.

    They will give you a 'start over' button if it advantages their shareholders. Pray they don't alter the terms further.

  • The first sentence of this is a goof ... they can't understand proposals to regulate a content provider and what they do with information that is implied to be non-public but they are all for regulating whose traffic ISPs can regulate/shape on the networks that they own and operate ..... this is silliness.
  • I don't give a dang. In march it will be the three-year anniversary since I deleted my account from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. So I'm pretty happy and still connected in other ways.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close