Wikipedia Co-founder Slams Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter and the 'Appalling' Internet (cnbc.com) 97
Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001, is not happy with how the internet has evolved in the nearly two decades since then. From a report: "It's appalling frankly," he said in an interview with CNBC this week. Sanger's main gripe is with big social media platforms, especially Facebook and Twitter. These companies, he says, exploit users' personal data to make profits, at the expense of "massive violations" of privacy and security. "They can shape your experience, they can control what you see, when you see it and you become essentially a cog in their machine," he said. Sanger launched a "social media strike" this week to draw attention to his concerns.
In a "Declaration of Digital Independence" published on his personal blog, he said "vast digital empires" need to be replaced by decentralized networks of independent individuals. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded to seemingly endless concerns about privacy and security on the platform with a new vision for the company, highlighting measures like encrypted messaging. Sanger questioned whether Zuckerberg's intentions are "sincere" and blasted the Facebook executive for abusing the company's power online. "The internet wouldn't have been created by people like Mark Zuckerberg, or any of the sort of corporate executives in Silicon Valley today," he said. "They wouldn't be capable, they don't have the temperament, they're too controlling. They don't understand the whole idea of bottom up."
In a "Declaration of Digital Independence" published on his personal blog, he said "vast digital empires" need to be replaced by decentralized networks of independent individuals. [...] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded to seemingly endless concerns about privacy and security on the platform with a new vision for the company, highlighting measures like encrypted messaging. Sanger questioned whether Zuckerberg's intentions are "sincere" and blasted the Facebook executive for abusing the company's power online. "The internet wouldn't have been created by people like Mark Zuckerberg, or any of the sort of corporate executives in Silicon Valley today," he said. "They wouldn't be capable, they don't have the temperament, they're too controlling. They don't understand the whole idea of bottom up."
So another Wikipedia Beggathon coming? (Score:1)
I agree that Zuck sucks. So does Google. So does Wikepedia.
Re: (Score:1)
Wikipedia is inaccurate drivel filled with fanboi editors.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I would prefer the beggathon than what facebook and google do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it should be *free*. Maybe they could sell advertising... Or better yet, they could profile you based on your searches and sell that information to vendors. Or the government.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that Zuck sucks. So does Google. So does Wikepedia.
I edited a Wikipedia article to format a listing of entries so they had the same complete information. It was rolled back by one of Wikipredia's cabal of self-appointed Guardians of the Universe. Plus they blocked my IP address because I use a VPN service. Pricks.
No one is forced to use social media (Score:1, Troll)
If you have a problem with the terms and service of any of them then don't use them. Exceptions should be made for children who don't understand, but there's no excuse for adults. If you're old enough to vote you're old enough to make decisions that may be bad for you.]
And no "I use it to keep up with friends and family" is not a valid excuse for handing over your personal details IMO. There are alternatives - the phone system or SMS or email or even - god forbid! - meeting them in person!
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, "They probably ended up with a clown" is little consolation to someone with real skills who's still looking for a new job. Kinda like those two engineers at Thinkol probably derived very limited satisfaction when Challenger proved them right by going BOOM./
Re: (Score:1)
I disagree. Some people, like trump voters, are so utterly stupid that they are in fact virtually FORCED to use social media -- why? Because they are addicted to drama and trauma, cult of personality, and the constant intravenous feed of echo chamber goodness that tells them exactly what they want to hear. These people are far, far too stupid --and yes I said it -- these MAGA hat wearing crayon eaters are dumber than rocks -- they are just plain too stupid to decide anything on their own, much less to disco
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a problem with the terms and service of any of them then don't use them.
Facebook and Google collect data on you whether you use them or not.
Shadow profiling [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thats small beer compared to people willingly handing over their personal identity and all the data about their lives, families and friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people are happy to hand over personal information about YOU as well. Unless you don't have any family or friends, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
So deaf people can't use email?
Keep your hands off of my echo chamber..... (Score:1, Offtopic)
I want to believe what I want to believe and I want the Internet to support me in those beliefs.
The world is flat.
Vaccines are bad.
Obama is a racist, Muslim who is in love with the Besty Ross Flag.
Trump is going to end western civilization.
Climate change is a myth.
We evolved from chimps.
Humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time.
Aliens built the pyramids.
The universe happened by chance.
UFO are visiting earth and stationed at the pentagon.
Chocolate milk comes from brown-cows.
Twinkies have an infinit
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry man, I am half Russian, I promote chaos. :)
Re:Only if you participate (Score:5, Informative)
If you refuse to participate they have no control over you.
But I agree they should be taken down and their executives tried for fraud.
Not true. Even if you're not a Facebook subscriber, they keep a shadow account on you, and continue to track you all over the internet, and sell your data.
Furthermore, even if you don't care about your data being sold and exploited, you have to deal with a society in which a few Russians can sway an American election, false science gets a bully pulpit, and truth is an outdated concept.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you're not a Facebook subscriber, they keep a shadow account on you, and continue to track you all over the internet, and sell your data.
So they're like a credit bureau, except without the ability to have have a real-world impact on your ability to buy a car, get a house, get insurance, or be hired for a job? I'm sorry, I already used up all the fucks I have to give on the credit bureaus.
Furthermore, even if you don't care about your data being sold and exploited, you have to deal with a society in which a few Russians can sway an American election, false science gets a bully pulpit, and truth is an outdated concept.
And if they didn't do it on Facebook, they'd find somewhere else to do it. The fault lies with our public education system, not social media.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Citation needed
Re: (Score:1)
I'll believe that people who call themselves "center right" really are "center right" when they stop pretending left wingers who call people with Swastikas on their Twitter avatars fascists are "just calling everyone right of AOC nazis", and when they condemn Trump's punishments for perfectly legal asylum seekers - including child separation/torture and the camps, rather than making up excuses or pretending they don't exist.
If you're pretty much an apologist for fascism, you aint "center right".
Re:Irony... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Irony... (Score:1)
When you guys are done attacking the messenger, can we all agree that he's still right and we need to do something about it?
They can shape your experience, they can control.. (Score:1)
Is he talking about the small, select group of Wikipedia editors that have a monopoly on the content of articles?
I slam Wikipedia (Score:3)
Suspect timing (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets talk about how open/transparent/democratic wikipedia is right after wikimedia decided to completely side step the community process and ban a prolific editor (Fram).
Screw Jimmy, he is no different than folks at any of those other companies other than he runs a non-profit so he tends to tread just little more lightly. However when democracy yields results that are truly out of line with HIS idea of what's right; he becomes no less a top down abusive authoritarian than the rest of them.
Re:Suspect timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Fram was a jerk who needed to be banned.
Possibly I don't know. But there *was* a process in place and community group responsible and capable of implementing such a ban. They had elected not to address the matter or at least not do so yet. WMF then stepped in and acted quite outside the normal process.
The rules should be the rules and the process should be the same for EVERYONE; that is fairness. Its like that indicent recently where the judge rules that highschool rapist should be given lenience because he "came from good family" and "had good grades" That has F*** all to do with anything, the sentence guide lines should be followed and followed no matter who the convict is. Justice should be blind. There are exceptions which is why we have juries. A jury can legitimately nullify - maybe the defendant technically broke the law when he stole that car and crashed it into the building but hey he did it because the building was on fire the doors looked and that poor woman's baby was trapped inside! - that is why we have a jury in the process. Everyone unless they waive that right has the opportunity to appeal to the juries overriding sense of justice. At which point the judge can't ignore the not-guilting verdict, and convict anyway. Which is basically what happened here. The community chose to do nothing about Fram and WMF stepped in said whatever we don't care what you all think he's bad and has to go.
Re: (Score:3)
Only a part - a small, optional part at that (Score:3)
"Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001, is not happy with how the internet has evolved in the nearly two decades since then".
Mr Sanger has a point, but he is using a double-barrelled shotgun instead of a hunting rifle. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the other Web giants are not the Internet; in spite of their huge size, they are only a tiny fraction of it.
Identifying the social media corporations with the Internet is like confusing mites and ticks with the elephant on which they are parasitic.
Re: (Score:1)
You are very naive.
There are google, facebook, and amazon tracking bugs on virtually every web page you visit.
"login with google/facebook/twitter" is becoming ubiquitous.
You don't have to go to these sites to be tracked by them. They are everywhere, and unavoidable on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the bulk of the internet is netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Decentralize social media / internet, so that:
Nobody can stop all kinds of harmful content???
Nobody can stop bullying/harassing/abusing/exploiting/manipulating???
Nobody can stop all kinds of criminal activities???
Newsflash: No one can stop any of that stuff RIGHT NOW. Was there a point you were trying make?
Get off my lawn! (Score:3)
Whitemalepedia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eternal September (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of Ad Hominen in here (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile are those commentors commenting on what he's saying? No.
I don't give a fuck about what they think about Wikipedia's policies or what they think of it's founder personally. I do however agree with what he's saying about what's become of the Internet in general, and isn't that more important than whether you like Wikipedia or it's founder or not?
Re: Lots of Ad Hominen in here (Score:2, Informative)
I think the point is; the man has blood on his hands, while pointing at zuck saying "he's got blood on his hands"
Re: (Score:2)
"So-and-so is no better than such-and-such therefore we can ignore everything he has to say"
You see the problem with that excuse for logic?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he has blood on his hands, does it make the message any less truthful or correct?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Distributed needs to be easy! (Score:2)
I don't feel exploited. (Score:2)
Ironically the ads on Facebook annoy me less than the giant pop-up begging banner that Wikipedia brings up every time their bank account has less than several tens of millions of dollars.
Imagine an entire internet begging for your cash. You think micropayments are bad in games? Pay $1 for Slashdot, $5 for Google, $2 for CNN, and multiple by the number of unique websites you visit. If you're not broke by the end of this thought experiment, well you've got money and Wikipedia needs your help.
The problem is ... (Score:2)
... that the majority just don't care about privacy nor companies profiting off of their data.
It is not a matter of IF but WHEN these companies will get hacked. Even _with_ the Facebook scandal fuck all has changed. People are not interested in changing.
They are completely clueless about WHY Ben Franklin once wrote:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
WIKIPEDIA NEEDS YOUR DONATIONS TODAY (Score:2)
PLEASE DONATE. Do you want the death of knowledge? WELL YOU BETTER DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA NOW or knowledge will be DEAD FOREVER.
Also facebook and the internet are bad places.
DONATE NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
After the last few grudging times they admitted that they have decades of funding, I just adblocked the begging banners.
Larry Sanger is the founder that hates wikipedia (Score:2)
99.99% people don't give a f**k about privacy (Score:1)