Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Privacy Social Networks

How Facebook Could Profit From Zuckerberg's So-Called 'Privacy' Push (washingtonpost.com) 43

Saturday the Associated Press analyzed Mark Zuckerberg's new vision for Facebook as an encrypted "privacy-focused communications platform." [C]ritics say the announcement obscures Facebook's deeper motivations: To expand lucrative new commercial services, continue monopolizing the attention of users, develop new data sources to track people and frustrate regulators who might be eyeing a breakup of the social-media behemoth. Facebook "wants to be the operating system of our lives," said Siva Vaidhyanathan, director of media studies at the University of Virginia... Vaidhyanathan said Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication such as email, texting and Apple's iMessage in order to "do everything through a Facebook product."

The end goal could be transform Facebook into a service like the Chinese app WeChat , which has 1.1 billion users and includes the world's most popular person-to-person online payment system... But Zuckerberg said nothing in the Wednesday blog post about reforming privacy practices in its core business, which remains hungry for data. A recent Wall Street Journal report found that Facebook was still collecting personal information from apps such as user heart rates and when women ovulate ... Facebook also has trackers that harvest data on people's online behavior on about 30 percent of the world's websites , said Jeremy Tillman of Ghostery, a popular ad-blocker and anti-tracking software.

"When they say they are building a private messaging platform there is nothing in there that suggests they are going to stop their data collection and ad-targeting business model," he said.

This discussion has been archived.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

How Facebook Could Profit From Zuckerberg's So-Called 'Privacy' Push

Comments Filter:
  • Vs nearly everyone else online at this point. I say screw the government and laws you people want to endlessly pass. If this company wants to make money by using data about people then go ahead. Just fine the shit out of them when they try to take action on that data in an illegal way. It's already illegal to break existing laws protecting people for damn near everything under the sun. I think this is a freedom issue for capitalism and the media is trying to demonize profit making. It's ok for gov to run ce
    • by jwymanm ( 627857 )
      "Suggests they are going to stop their data collection and ad-targeting business model" Well no shit captain obvious. News at eleven: business has no plans to stop entire way of profiting from doing business. Wowzers. Top class media at work.
      • Facebook itself pointed out they could adopt a subscription businessmodel:

        “We certainly thought about lots of other forms of monetization including subscriptions, and we’ll always continue to consider everything,” - Sheryl Sandberg
        https://www.sfgate.com/busines... [sfgate.com]

        What your (troll) comment shows is that Silicon Valley is so used to the current businessmodel that they can't envision something else.

        If you ask me, we need HTML6 to have a built-in micro payments system, where I can top-up my br

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "privacy-focused communications platform."

        The term is definitely intended to mislead. The target offers no privacy in the sense that people are concerned with facebook violating. It's just more private in the sense your spouse is less likely to catch you cheating.

    • Good. Now that we have that cleared up, I'm sure you'll have no hesitations about posting your social security number, mailing address, bank account number(s) and credit card number(s) along with any relevant PIN numbers or whatnot.

      Information must be free, right comrade?

  • Too bad Diaspora imploded, eh?

    "Possession is 9 points of the law." If Facebook has possession of the data, YOUR data, then the 9 points is on their side. Actually you're lucky if you can claim one point on your side. If you want to take back possession of YOUR own data, you have to prove that the possession should change, and the basic operation of the law is to presume the possessor is in the right.

    "Follow the money." Now about the abuse of YOUR personal information. That follows from where the money moves. Facebook wanted to become a valuable company, and the only valuable thing they had was YOUR personal information. Of course they are going to sell it. The only questions are trivial, such as how to repackage YOUR personal information for maximum value and how to disguise the abuse.

    I would actually go a bit farther and say that the companies that failed to follow the money hard enough were the same companies that Facebook crushed. The reward for not sufficiently and aggressively abusing YOUR personal information was death. The only real threat to Facebook is some company that figures out better ways to do it. Amazon, that's your cue?

  • Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication

    OK, great. Doesn't mean he'll get that.
    But he can 'want' all day long.
    • I'm also remembering a recent story where FB wanted everyone to send them their nudes.
      It's a real weird end-game for Zuckerberg, I'm not going to pretend I understand what his childhood bullies put him through.
      • Zuckerberg is a bigger, and weirder nerd than almost anybody here on Slashdot. He is such a nerd that almost all the other nerds can't stand him, let alone the pinks.

        The only pinks that will hang out with him are the parasites that hang around like pilot fish.

  • And it is worse than the original.

    Remember what Marx said about the ruling principle of the Communist society? "To everyone according to their needs, from everyone according to their ability". Consider what that means in the terminology of modern economic science.

    It means that when you're on the "supply side", you will be squeezed off to the last drop, and paid at the marginal, competitive rate that is set on the oligopsonic [wikipedia.org] labor market by the several large players who mostly determine the price. You will have the rest of the working people around world against you. It also means that when you're on the "demand side", as a consumer, you will again be charged at the margin for every purchase you make.

    If you studied some economic theory, you should immediately recognize that means "monetizing" - that is, taking away from you your producer and consumer surplus [wikipedia.org] , the difference between what you would have paid if you could have been provided an only offer you can't refuse, and what a competitive market without differentiation (and advertising) can charge you.

    This is the game that Facebooks, googles, amazons, and the rest of the "marketing" bunch is playing with the huge collection of consumer data. It is a game of selling you the cheapest piece of shit in the lot for the most money you would be willing to pay for it, and charging your employer their (and your) producer surplus for the "service". You buying shit from your online profile because of "incentives" is playing their game for them.

    And when all your surplus is gone, then what? Will it stop? Hardly, the game is already set for the next stage - modifying your preferences so that you buy even shittier stuff for even more.

    The only way to win is not to play.

    If you can afford it ;)

  • - Facebook and Zuck are all about the money. That's not judgmental, it's just what corporations and business owners do: they only care about their pockets and that of shareholders, not morals or ethics.

    - Facebook and Zuck have been making out like bandits from dataraping people so far.

    So why would they suddenly announce a policy change that's detrimental to an existing, proven business model? Well, here's why:

    - People are more and more concerned that Facebook is dataraping them. They don't know how exactly,

  • by ITRambo ( 1467509 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @06:41AM (#58246536)
    Note the Facebook icon on the bottom of Slashdot's pages. This site is part of the Zuckerborg collective that degrades your privacy. I'm a little surprised to see that on Slashdot.
  • You, the ads and the NSA.
  • Hearing Zuckerberg talk about privacy is like hearing a fat person talking about their diet.
  • From the summary: aidhyanathan said Zuckerberg wants people to abandon competing, person-to-person forms of communication such as email, texting and Apple's iMessage in order to "do everything through a Facebook product."
    I'd rather stop using the Internet entirely and forget it ever existed than have to use any Facebook-owned service. Fuck that shit.

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Working...