[flagged]
That's especially true in this case. When a discussion has been repeated so many times, it becomes off topic on a site where the core value is intellectual curiosity.
The fact that people trust Google with intimate search queries, or trust Facebook with their personal photos and info, or trust Apple with their messages, or trust a website like Amazon in shopping is really amazing. They are all private companies that are, strictly speaking, beholden only to their shareholders. And for whatever reason, people either forget that or erroneously believe there is legislation governing their behavior.
well, it's often used as a lazy sort of character assassination.
it's also (perhaps ironically) a good example of why "right to be forgotten" can make sense.
Or, perhaps ironically, a good example of why "right to be forgotten" does not make sense.
I don't see these citations as "lazy character assassination"; rather, "this is who he is, he laid the cards bare more than a decade ago"
What's troubling about FB is the _other_ implicit information they (and the other large social apps) passively collect about you. Unless you're using a particularly effective ad/privacy blocker you're also sharing all the data about every site you've visited that has a FB like button. Also, separate from you and your data, FB has a tremendous graph of all the contacts, etc who have you as a contact.
Collectively, this gives them a much greater reach and ability to make inferences than just what you directly share.
The quoted conversation is about Zuck volunteering to share information to someone who is NOT their friends.
SSN is not private, personal info?
I've never met anyone online or offline who wanted to publicize their SSN widely. Oh wait... that LifeLock dude.... https://www.wired.com/2010/05/lifelock-identity-theft/
SNS almost certainly refers to either:
1) Student numbers
2) Screen names (like for AIM)
Typically, the only defenders of MZ are FB employees. I guess they indoctrinate their employees to their Godhead well!