Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Communications Network Privacy Social Networks The Internet United States

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%.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Survey Suggests Continuing US Loyalty After Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06, 2018 @08:52PM (#56564506)

    ...they will forget within a week"

        -- Connie Nielsen, Gladiator (2000)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      At this time there is no real suitable replacement.

      • No "suitable" replacement is possible. A replacement as enticing and persuasive-by-design will feature the same faults. Because the faults are ... ***features***
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06, 2018 @10:01PM (#56564686)

          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

          • 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.

        • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Sunday May 06, 2018 @11:51PM (#56564980)
          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".
    • 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.

  • by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Sunday May 06, 2018 @09:04PM (#56564526) Homepage
    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 just because there was a report of heroin cut with rat poison in their area?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      100% this. That and they don’t understand what privacy and their data is to begin with. Also stupidity. Lots and lots of it.

      • 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?

        • 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.

          • 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.

        • I once held this attitude, but recently I have changed my opinion. The results are not limited to ads 'more attuned to my interests'. If Facebook knows I read science fiction, and shows me ads for science fiction, that's fine. But what about when they use the data to infer things I haven't shared? The "Target knew the girl was pregnant" story is a well known example. It is easy for them to infer a lot about us without our understanding that we are sharing it. If you are comfortable with that, so be it. For
      • Also stupidity.

        Definition of stupid (and lazy): going about your life dismissing everyone else as "stupid".

    • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Sunday May 06, 2018 @10:57PM (#56564850)
      It doesn't take being addicted to not care that everything you put in a semi-public profile is available to various 3rd parties. They couldn't access private message contents, which is the only thing anyone should think wouldn't be public. I don't care that some company might have scraped my public profile info through one of my friends installing an app; even though I only add in-person friends I'd still never presume anything visible to dozens of people wasn't publicly accessible to apps on the platform.
      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?
      • 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.

        • by dontbgay ( 682790 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @06:37AM (#56565756)
          It's not abour YOU neither. Facebook is inescapable as far as personal information and browsing habits go. The Like buttons and the Share buttons on damn near every website follow you around the internet. Even if you haven't made a personal profile, all those page clicks are logged. And even if you don't see a button on the page, there are pixels you can add to your site to track users. It's marketing. Plain and simple. They've hooked the entire internet (mostly) on seeing who is doing what, and doubly so if you're a host or online shop. The angle you're playing is trite and insignificant when you consider what you're up against. The only way to win, is to not play. And since you're here, you've made your choice.
        • 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?

    • 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

    • Many doesn't really care. Most people who tried facebook are using it as part of daily life.
    • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06, 2018 @09:05PM (#56564530)

    Studies show continued cigarette loyalty after Surgeon General's warning.

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The fake outrage since the election doesn't actually play with the population at large.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • 2) Most people don't change their vote just because they see an ad from a Russian Troll

        Then why are you here?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday May 06, 2018 @09:33PM (#56564622)

    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.

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      But NBA, Comcast, Toyota, CBS, Obama, health, customer, etc., care too!

    • And when something truly drastic goes down, the people all cry in unison, "Why didn't THEY do more to protect us?!"

      • And they wouldn't be wrong. Look at what the EU is doing. Entire companies are having to halt operations in the EU, because they cannot meet or are unwilling to meet the new regulations the EU is putting in place. There's no reason the US couldn't do the exact same thing, except for HURR MUH MONEYYIIIEESS that some capitalist pig feels he's entitled to over my right to NOT be spammed by his shit brick company.
    • 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.

    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      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.

    • What you're saying is that 99.9999999999999999999% of the world is either as dumb as a box of rocks, or has been tricked/indoctrinated to believe that 'privacy' is BAD and WRONG and only BAD and WRONG people want it. Then to reinforce that activity they are given treats and positive reinforcement of the unnatural (and believe you me, everyone, the need for privacy is inherent, not learned) behavior of 'sharing everything with everyone all the time'. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean Facebook is right, doe
    • 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.

    • And the 0.000000001% are keeping the people's info, thought they are more than that.
  • Film at 11.

  • Some sixty-four 64% percent out of a hundred said they used Facebook at least once a day

    FTFY

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...when he referred to Facebook users as "dumb fucks".

  • by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Sunday May 06, 2018 @10:56PM (#56564844)

    Take this quick survey* to find out your Offical Facebook Loyalty Level.

      *Run by the company that replaced Cambridge Analytica

  • by VirginMary ( 123020 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @12:10AM (#56565032)

    Rule #1: People are stupid.

    Rule #2: If some human behaviour seems incomprehensible to you, see rule #1.

    • 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?

      • 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.

        • 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.

    • Rule #1: People are stupid.

      Actually, dismissing things you don't like or don't understand as "stupid" is both stupid and lazy.

  • Or no care for their own privacy?

  • I know this doesn't really mean shit but quite a few people I know got rid of Facebook. I've been free from Facebook for 6 months now!
  • It's my garbage bin. It allows me to log into sites for comments without having to register. All the concomitant trash just goes to my Facebook account. I don't know what is in it, and I don't care. I opened the account with false credentials throughout, and I use Facebook only on my desktop.
  • 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 the assumption that people trust their data to be private. But anyone who is privacy-conscious is already staying away from Facebook. And for this self-filtered population the scandal is not much of a scandal.
  • 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.

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...