Facebook Survey Suggests Continuing US Loyalty After Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal (bbc.com) 103
A Reuters/Ipsos survey found that Facebook users in the U.S. remain loyal to the site, despite the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal that exposed the data of 87 million users. The survey "found no clear loss or gain in use since then," reports the BBC. From the report: Conducted online, the Reuters/Ipsos survey questioned 2,194 American adults between April 26 and April 30. The poll has a margin of error of three percentage points. Some 64% percent said they used Facebook at least once a day, down slightly from the 68% recorded in a similar poll in late March, soon after the Cambridge Analytica story broke. Asked if they were aware of their current privacy settings, 74% of Facebook users said they were, and 78% said they knew how to change them. Among Twitter users, this was 55% and 58%, while for Instagram users, it was 60% and 65%.
"The mob is fickle, brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
...they will forget within a week"
-- Connie Nielsen, Gladiator (2000)
Re: (Score:1)
At this time there is no real suitable replacement.
The mob is fickle, brother...forgotten in a month. (Score:2)
Re:The mob is fickle, brother...forgotten in a mon (Score:5, Insightful)
The """faults""" are by design, but the only fault - getting caught and provoking media attention - will be fixed either by Facebook or by the next iteration that arises after Facebook crashes and burns.
Incidentally, since the true catalyst for the media outrage this time around was the tangential association with Trump and the idea that Facebook's actions were indirectly helping Trump's campaign, the lesson for next time will be to discriminate even more aggressively against any candidate that the media has unanimously aligned itself against.
Captcha: fascism
Re: (Score:1)
Captcha: fascism
Hello Comrade. That's a big word. Are you sure you know what it means?
a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce
Does that remind you of anywhere else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We have problems, but the fact that you are posting here, and I'm responding, and neither of us is dead, is a clear indication facism isn't one of our problems. At least we have the tools for change, where your population has been completely neutered of this possibility.
Re:The mob is fickle, brother...forgotten in a mon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The mob is fickle, brother...forgotten in a mon (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. It's like saying "nine out of ten heroin users would continue to use it even when warned about the dangers of contaminated needles".
No it's not like saying that at all. So people's data was used to help target an election campaign...
The election tomfoolery is just the tip of the iceberg. What about stalking? Identity theft? Burglars knowing when you're out of state on vacation? Getting passed over for a job because some busybody in HR discovers that you've smoked weed a nonzero number of times? Expressing an opinion that's protected by law in your home country, but when you happen to travel to a different country, you get arrested or maybe even just disappeared, merely for having said it?
So, yes, it is like saying that.
Re: (Score:3)
How would you fix that? Limit what people are allowed to say or share?
People choose to allow their lives to be public. It's not necessarily a smart choice, but it is their choice.
I have a facebook account that is essentially an online photo album for my friends and family to see. My wife has one that she uses to share everything under the sun. Short of making her wait until we return to town from a vacation to post vacation pics, it's her life and her choice.
We both are aware of the risks. She gets all
Re: (Score:2)
"It's her life and her choice."
I don't use Facebook, but friends and family do. I try to make my feelings clear about the ma
Re: (Score:3)
How would you fix that? Limit what people are allowed to say or share?
Pass laws limiting the use of harvested data, and / or require express consent from the owner to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What about actually talking to people you care to keep in touch with?
Because phone calls and face-to-face conversations are interruptions. Textual communications can be handled in batch mode, and I can type much faster than I can talk. Also, on the phone or in person, it is hard to break off the conversation, especially with the people who have the least to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversing better with text than phone is a handicap? OK. So, since so many of us are handicapped, why not let us use a tool that addresses that handicap? Even with close family members I use text much more than phone calls. Speaking on the phone, I sometimes forget a detail that's already been communicated or lose the original point when we get on a tangent. That's not an issue when I can see the whole conversation. Or I'll get bored with a 10 minute story about getting doughnuts. Not an issue when I can r
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. There ultimately was no mob at all. A bunch of hastags on twitter, a bit of bashing about in the media, and .... no one cared.
What else do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
100% this. That and they don’t understand what privacy and their data is to begin with. Also stupidity. Lots and lots of it.
Re: (Score:3)
That and they don’t understand what privacy and their data is to begin with.
Or they do understand, and just don't care. Seriously, what "Bad Thing" will happen to me if Facebook knows my shopping and browsing history? The only consequence that I can see is advertising more attuned to my interests, which is hardy "bad". Maybe I will also get better recommendations for movies and books. The way I see it, the more they know about me, the better.
Also stupidity. Lots and lots of it.
But you're one of the smart ones, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously, what "Bad Thing" will happen to me if Facebook knows my shopping and browsing history?
It has to be all about YOU, right?
It couldn't be about other people, people who don't want their community to find out they're gay (or atheist).
etc.
You're not the spokesperson for the internet. Go and rethink your position.
Re: (Score:2)
It couldn't be about other people, people who don't want their community to find out they're gay (or atheist).
We have been trying to explain this to the RIAA/MPAA for well over a decade now: If you put information out there you cannot control it, you can threaten lawsuits or try implementing various forms of DRM but ultimately you do not control it. If you don't want it out there publicly then don't put it out there publicly. That's the nature of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also stupidity.
Definition of stupid (and lazy): going about your life dismissing everyone else as "stupid".
Re:What else do you expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I have a well thought out reason why it won't keep me off Facebook, I suspect an even larger contingent has that vague 'it's not really a secret anyway' attitude combined with the even bigger lack of direct consequences: What impact has this had on them that they can see? None. And not because they think just others were effected like your drug cut, but because even if their data was collected; so what?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care that some company might have scraped my public profile info through one of my friends installing an app
It's not about YOU, is it?
There are plenty of people who do have good reason to care if that data went public - they might be (eg.) a gay atheist or something. Being publicly outed because one of their contacts downloaded a dumb app that starts spewing that information everywhere could have serious consequences for many people.
You're not the spokesperson for the Internet. Grow up and learn there's other people in the world.
Re:What else do you expect? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Being publicly outed because one of their contacts downloaded a dumb app that starts spewing that information everywhere could have serious consequences for many people.
Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer. Don't put that info on your public Facebook profile?
Re: What else do you expect? (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s more like expecting a heroine user to quit after finding out his money is used by the drug cartel to buy guns. People already assume that facebook is selling their data. They likely assume that it is worse than it really is. They donâ(TM)t care. Given the option to pay $5/month for private data, very few would sign up. They might pay for less ads but privacy isnâ(TM)t something people care about. This was only a scandal for the media. Everyone else assumed it was already happe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use Facebook, but from what I can see, most people who do act as though it's an addiction. Would you expect heroin addicts to quit
So you're not in a very good place to comment on people's behaviours. Your analogy of the heroin addict is way off the mark. Here's a better comparison sans analogy:
Would someone who shared something on a platform knowing full well it gets shared with advertisers for marketing purposes quit that platform because the media discovered that the marketing purpose was politicial?
There's no adiction involved. As I said from the onset the only people at all who think this is even remotely an issue are the media. T
Surgeon General finds... (Score:5, Funny)
Studies show continued cigarette loyalty after Surgeon General's warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Studies show continued cigarette loyalty after Surgeon General's warning.
Or more likely: people who share ${thing_on_internet} aren't disuaded when you point out to them that some read ${thing_on_internet}.
The first Surgeon General warning pointed out that cigarettes are bad for you. The CA "scandal" pointed out Facebook shares user data, something that every little Facebook app has warned that it does since back before Farmville was a thing.
Not surprising (Score:1, Insightful)
The fake outrage since the election doesn't actually play with the population at large.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely. 1) FB users don't really care since anything they post becomes by default...public knowledge. 2) Most people don't change their vote just because they see an ad from a Russian Troll, a political party, or some advocacy group (i.e. the media). 3) Most people refuse to get outraged over something the other party got praised for doing just a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Most people don't change their vote just because they see an ad from a Russian Troll
Then why are you here?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm here to laugh at the idiots who think that privacy is a thing.
I meant "Most people don't change their vote just because they see an ad from a Russian Troll", and since you are obviously a troll, why are you contradicting yourself by posting. Hard to believe that got post one of the internet's great thinkers. If you walk around life thinking everyone else is an idiot, you might do well to turn your reflections inward. Great visionaries and thinkers usually don't go around "laughing at idiots" then bragging about it anonymously.
But anyway, You're right about our ability
Facebook is an addiction (Score:1)
People are addicted to the voyeurism that is facebook. They have to know what other people are up to,
Like all addictions I suggest going cold turkey!
Add the following to your hosts file
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
Re: (Score:1)
someone give this a +1 informative
No. One. Fucking. Cares. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look technorati of Slashdot, 99.9999999999% of the human population gives zero fucks about online privacy - well actually that's not true, because 99.999999999% of the human population of Earth will actively seek to *undermine* their own privacy if given any opportunity, and be happy doing so.
Do you get it? No? Well then, carry on in ignorance and fear. Just live with the pleasure of knowing you are "right" to be afraid, whatever that means.
Re: (Score:2)
But NBA, Comcast, Toyota, CBS, Obama, health, customer, etc., care too!
Re: (Score:2)
And when something truly drastic goes down, the people all cry in unison, "Why didn't THEY do more to protect us?!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: No. One. Fucking. Cares. (Score:3)
99.9999999999% of population leaves less than a finger of a person in the other group. It makes you sound like my wife when she compares who does how much around the house.
Re: (Score:2)
Look technorati of Slashdot, 99.9999999999% of the human population gives zero fucks about online privacy
This is true, but also has to be qualified.
Most people don't care about privacy until they need it. Ask anyone who was dragged by an online mob, 100% would ask for privacy, as much as they could get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look technorati of Slashdot, 99.9999999999% of the human population gives zero fucks about online privacy
Wrong. According to wikipedia, Europe comprises about 12% of the world's population.
Re: (Score:1)
People be stupid.... (Score:2)
Film at 11.
Re: Fake News! (Score:2)
Yup, most likely.
BBC Editors (Score:2)
Some sixty-four 64% percent out of a hundred said they used Facebook at least once a day
FTFY
Zuck was right... (Score:1)
...when he referred to Facebook users as "dumb fucks".
Survey (Score:3)
Take this quick survey* to find out your Offical Facebook Loyalty Level.
*Run by the company that replaced Cambridge Analytica
2 Rules to explain most human behaviour (Score:4, Insightful)
Rule #1: People are stupid.
Rule #2: If some human behaviour seems incomprehensible to you, see rule #1.
Re: (Score:2)
People can decide what's best for them without the input from socially inept autistic losers. :)
Actually, people in general, are absolutely inept at deciding what is best for them. Look at widespread cases of people eating themselves to death, drinking themselves to death, and dying from preventable diseases when medical care is accessible.
Re: (Score:3)
Define in this context. Who are stupid?
The people who don't abandon a service which the media discovered did something it said it was doing from the begining?
The media for blowing up this in incredible surprise?
The people who thought that anyone on Facebook gave a shit when their data which was collected for marketing purposes was sold for marketing purposes?
Or the people who thought that just because the magic word "election" was used, something would change?
Re: (Score:1)
Ooh ooh, I know this one! The answer is "none of the above."
The really stupid people here are the ones who are still trying to argue that the breach of privacy is no big deal if you don't care about your own personal privacy. These people still think the overarching conversation is just about personal embarrassment. They don't realize that this big of a breach of global privacy creates threats to things far more important than just your individual dignities.
Re: (Score:2)
The really stupid people here are the ones who are still trying to argue that the breach of privacy is no big deal if you don't care about your own personal privacy.
Only if you have an over inflated view of privacy. Protip: Everything you do on Facebook says "this will be shared with ${insert_shitty_third_party_here}.
The only ones claiming any kind of "breach" are the ones who have no idea how Facebook has been worked from day 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule #1: People are stupid.
Actually, dismissing things you don't like or don't understand as "stupid" is both stupid and lazy.
Loyalty? (Score:2)
Or no care for their own privacy?
What!? (Score:2)
I carry on using Facebook (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
AOL Survey suggests Usenet Loyalty (Score:2)
A recent survey of AOL users suggests that they are still loyal to Usenet.
Tragedy of the commons, nod and move on.
the scandal is based on a wrong assumption (Score:1)
the obvious, re-confirmed (Score:2)
Facebook's user base is already self-selected for prioritizing short-term convenience over long-term autonomy.
Libertarians, despair: none of these people are awake to the ideological lure of personal autonomy juice.