The opt-out illusion: how we have acquiesced to losing our privacy
the-tls.co.uk
the-tls.co.uk
Facebook will never change unless they are forced to. We have signed away perhaps one of the most important experiments ever in digital social networking to a behemoth that chips away at your humanity the longer you stay on it. People who think I'm being dramatic almost always underestimate exactly how much data Facebook, Google, et al. collect on you and the extent to which they use it to manipulate you emotionally or with your wallet. Every facet of Facebook is designed to coerce you into an addiction that results in you spending more and more time on the site while you consume ever more advertising content.
These enormous tech companies are kind of like the fast food of the Internet. They have erased individuality and served us an experience that is mass produced and shrink wrapped for our convenience. It's delicious and addictive, but we keep being told lies about the quality and safety of what we are consuming. We've become so reliant on it we've forgotten how to cook, if you'll extend the metaphor.
I increasingly hate a lot of the what the Internet is. I always feel watched and directed to the point where I have trouble trusting what I'm reading, like watching manufactured drama in a reality TV show. I'm planning on setting up my own website as an expressive space where I can go to be creative and try to consume thoughtful content and (hopefully) make thoughtful content for people in return. I'm hoping there's a world of expressiveness and fun to be had in interacting with people on the Internet on one's own terms.
Hope it turns out well!
Going cold turkey is never easy. If you're having trouble withdrawing, consider what I did over the past few years:
1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone; then
2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone; next
3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone; then
4. Delete the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps from your phone; and finally
5. Log out of Facebook on your desktop.
It took me 2 years to go through from step 1 to step 5. It has made me happier and more productive. I still have a Facebook account. But the friction of grabbing my laptop and logging in forces me to consider "is this what I want to do? Or am I thoughtlessly reaching for the crack pipe?" (It's been over a year since I've cared to log into Facebook. Feels more like trudging through spam in an old e-mail inbox, now, than anything compelling.)
6. Delete your account. Create a new account under a pseudonym. Add a single friend, who can add you to group chats.
At this point, you should have a near-empty news feed; Facebook is only for staying in touch with the group (eg, not missing out on social events) until people have gotten used to texting you to invite you to things.
You won't be able to comment on anything public because if your account gets reported as a fake, you'll be locked out of the account unless you provide ID (which of course you can't do, since it's not your real name).
I've not been on Facebook for years, and I tried doing this recently. It was relentless in pestering me for a phone number for "security reasons". It would not accept any of the online SMS services I found. I ended up abandoning it.
I mean it's right there...
mbasic.facebook.com for chat
No apps needed
Stay away from the newsfeed on the home page, no distraction and no mindless scrolling.
You can get a "burner" phone number and even a physical phone (that's what I do for whatsapp), but you can't have a burner face to make selfies.
...so now I don't have a FB account at all, and it is very inconvenient.
If you must, it doesn't seem like a big problem still. Go to thispersondoesnotexist.com, hit F5 a few times to find a nice portrait, then Google "driver license template" and apply basic Photoshop skills.
I did not check if images from thispersondoesnotexist.com would work to pass the selfie check, but my guess is that they wouldn't. A professional portrait of someone from a Western country who has never been seen on any photos Facebook owns, not even in the background? That's a red flag. Also, my guess is that Facebook knows about that page and takes precautions.
Anyway, if Facebook tries that hard to make sure I'm not there, why should I join?
I do not believe they check it; if you provide an ID scan, it's good enough.
Because you have no choice but to join.
If a lot of people do that, then maybe Facebook moves to requiring pictures with a code written on them, like Reddit does.
Damn, I never would have made a Facebook account if that was what the sign up process was when I signed up. That's just fucking insane. How the hell did it get to that point?
What I did was an alternate plan that can work for many:
- Don't install the Facebook app, but the FB Messenger lite app. No access to the walls.
- Mute channels you don't want to be pinged about (most of them except two in my case)
- Logging out of FB on the desktop is a good idea but I really type faster on a keyboard so often when pinged I'll just open up FF (with all the fencing in place) for a quick answer.
Now I keep contact with these people via WhatsApp (due to network effect it has in The Netherlands) and plain old telephone/e-mail as these are included in their contact info.
Don't quit Facebook right away. First, request your data and import this. Manually backup the data I mentioned above (and consider to remove people). Gradually delete all your posts (there's an addon for it, not sure which one I used). Then make a post you're going to leave Facebook. No drama, no reason required. You're just informing people about it. And then you do it: you go through the process of removing your account, and you never log in again. Ie. remove the password from your password manager.
I've also installed containers for GAFAM, and use a myriad of browser addons to protect my privacy.
3. Unfollow everyone in order to disable the news feed.
I did this to reduce usage and force me to actually visit friends' profiles, but it did its job too well. In the end I noticed that I wasn't really interested in anything I couldn't know by chatting in some other app or in person. The only thing hooking me up was the news feed itself.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/news-feed-era...
The main issue, at least for me, is that everything social that is happening is arranged through Facebook. My kids school events, social events in the town i live in, hell even the good old paper adds from our local grocery store has been replaced with posts on Facebook. Everything is announced and coordinated through Facebook.
So going "cold turkey" is not really an option unless i want to be left out of everything that is going on. That doesn't mean i don't care. I don't have the app installed, and usually don't browse it on my phone. Instead i limit it to "checking todays news" on Firefox (with facebook container) on my PC at home.
It starts with replying "I don't have Facebook and won't sign up to this thing" to everyone that explain that they are only on Facebook; even before you close your account. Just signalling that Facebook-only is not ok.
You're not so much being left out of everything as much as they are leaving people (you're far from alone) out of their events.
And that's part of the clever thing Facebook does to make you believe you have no option but theirs.
It took me 3 years from starting to reduce to finally deleting my account. I only wish I did it way sooner.
Organizers of these events have enough to manage without going to the effort of finding everyone who is not on facebook and contacting them. And let's stay away from "if they are real friends they will make the extra effort", as it is usually a good way to find out how few 'real friends' you have.
Edit: and I mean _they_, not you.
Ending an abusive relationship is always an option.
Won't say it works for everybody, but certainly worth to try. My life got better.
The only way to interact with what they collect is to have a facebook account!
I actually don't entirely see the problem here. I mean taking money from Scientologists to fund services I use (I don't use facebook, but hypothetically if I did ...) is a good thing in my view.
I guess you are worried that people will convert to Scientology, but really if the only thing that is keeping people from being Scientologists is not knowing about it then I think the problem is in no way related to Scientology.
The real issue then is that large swathes of society have been advocating for completely abandoning any sense of objective values while they loudly shout value judgements at the top of their lungs like petulant children with no sense of propriety having temper tantrums.
Blocking Scientology ads won't change that. You can't fix a problem not caused by the visibility of Scientology adds by changing the visibility of Scientology ads.
Why does your goal of trying to limit their "manipulation" have more validity than their goal of limiting yours?
Because Scientology's views aren't held in good faith and claims about society should be assumed to be pretexts used to justify the quoted excuse for predatory behavior. Scientology has a history of fraud, kidnapping, extortion, and other extreme exploitation and don't deserve any benefit of the doubt. Their views do have less validity since they're known bad actors.
I think a similar approach could be taken by this scraping library, though I admit it would be a lot of work to maintain it.
I feel we're approaching a sunset of companies that blatantly violate privacy. It's similar to how cigarettes and sugar were king once and suddenly society strikes back at them hard.
As time goes by, bad stuff will gain traction faster, like a global virus, but we'll also develop antibodies for them faster.
scientology is certainly ethically dubious. it's a tax shelter and MLM to financially benefit it's leaders disguised as a religion, which attacks its detractors publicly. that some people find meaning and belonging there is incidental to it's purpose. so no love for scientology.
but why would you expect facebook to ban advertising from them? and why would that be the last straw that made you quit facebook?
facebook (particularly zuckerberg) itself has poor ethics, and that's as good a reason to quit facebook as one should need.
They’ve just been the target of specific bad press, which they’re naturally trying to rectify.
And I mean sure we can argue without end if preventing medical care to mentally disabled people is worse or less severe than harboring and protecting child molesters, or if it’s more unrealistic that we all have Alien soul fragments from a Vulcano explosion or that a superhuman beings once defied the laws of biology, chemistry and physics all in ways that are less impressive than what David Copperfield can pull off without assistance. But at the end of the day the all fit in the catagory of “Tax avoiding institutions based on a belief in obvious falsehoods harboring and protecting criminal behavior in their organizations”
At time it honestly seems that the Mobs biggest mistake was not openly proclaiming a belief in man-bear-pig to justify their operations.
Step 2: Download your backup copy of horribly over-compressed images and videos that Facebook ruins on your behalf
Step 3: Deactivate and cancel your Facebook
Step 4: Enjoy life
I mean this is a weird way to phrase it but you definitely cannot participate in modern society without hindering yourself in various meaningful ways if you do not "opt-in" to giving up your privacy. "Opt-in" requirements have consequently struck me as "privacy theatre" which mostly irritates.
I don't see any solution for the current privacy situation other than regulation and enough liability attached to data breaches to make hoarding customer data a good way to go bankrupt.
You can generally just delete the popup from the DOM.
Sure, if you lack your spine and moral compass. The business model is as follows:
1) Make a free add-on and have it gain popularity.
Then, either:
2a) Inject malicious code into it that delivers malware/advertisements, making you money.
or:
2b) Sell your add-on to a third party that will do 2a). If your add-on is popular enough, potential buyers will come to you themselves.
Other than that, no, I don't think you can monetize an add-on directly.
I meant it requires effort to resist these temptations and of course the more technical effort of defending against privacy invasions of large networks.
Sites that do not offer the equal choice between "continue with privacy intrusion" and "continue without privacy intrusion" are definitely out of compliance since 2018. Report them to ankle-biters like http://noyb.eu if you feel like making the world a little bit better.
> Consent will not be free in cases where there is any element of compulsion, pressure or inability to exercise free will
Article 7 is the key bit, specifically entry 2: "...the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language."
(edited to remove superfluous GDPR reference)
This payload contains user events e.g. how long I read the article, a user identity guid (presumably a fingerprint of my browser), my isp name
By the way HN by the way seems to be the nicest site in terms of privacy, simplicity and page load times.
I've noticed the effects of this reaching normal people. It can be debilitating when they're spoon-fed fear without a corresponding dose of digital safety education. They're afraid of these companies or the internet in general but don't really know why. That kind of environment makes it all too easy for someone with an agenda to step in and take control of the narrative, manipulating people for their own purposes. "You're afraid. Let me tell you why you're afraid and how I'm going to fix it. Vote for me."
Even if you leave their platform they won’t leave you alone. How exactly can you stop Facebook compiling shadow profiles?
How do you stop Google Analytics without installing more of their software?
We used to be able to say no to software, now it’s all “Not Right Now”.
1. Support advocacy groups that defend your rights (i.e. make a donation, become a member, participate in activities) 2. Send letters, e-mails to or call your representatives expressing your concerns. 3. Attend protests when those are organized. 4. Use your right to vote. Make an informed decision. 5. Educate those around you about viable options, such as they are. 6. Support technological efforts such as they are: document, give feedback, report bugs, inform yourself about alternatives, use them. 7. Inform others, those that are also concerned, about steps 1 to 6.
Your civil and human rights are never ever self-evident or to be taken for granted. They are not unmovable natural laws. Their existence hinges entirely on the willingness of society at large as well as individual responsibility to defend the basic principles and uphold the culture that underpin them.
So, when it comes to defending your rights, safeguarding them boils down to one brutally simple question: how hard are you willing to pull your weight?
Things that stand out to me is the use of the word "we" in the title creating an artificial us and them of of people like "us" who are clued in enough to be reading this bit of wisdom on their website.
In reality, this is a piece cliche laden drivel that brings us nothing new, novel, or remotely insightful and rehashes the same things that people have been writing for years. It's true clickbait; no redeaming features. It's light reading for designed to trigger emotions in a particular crowd with reasonable and irrational concerns about having their freedoms infringed by "surveillance capitalism".
My view is very simple: we are enjoying a brief period of time where the technical capabilities still have enough wiggle room that we can sometimes be un-monitored. Enjoy it while it lasts. But given that we all carry phones that have their microphones turned on just so it can respond to "Alexa", "Siri", or "Hey Google" for the last few years means that it's quite hard to be out of reach from several active microphones; no matter how many things you opt out off (unless that includes having a social life). Much of our public space is monitored by surveillance cameras. Our phones also report our location (via cell towers) every second they are connected to a network. Etc. We emit so many signals continuously that are tracking us that the only thing limiting surveillance is our ability to connect the dots. Which is an ability we now know for sure that the NSA has been investing in as fast as nearly unlimited government funding allows (courtesy of Snowden, Assange, and other people risking everything to report on this).
Right now it's easy to track large groups of people but tracking the entire population is still a bit controversial though that's probably been happening covertly in some places and a bit more openly in China. And of course there's no good reason to assume they are limiting their tracking to China. They have a long track record of industrial espionage, just saying.
My "consent" is being forced out of me so that roughly ~100 (at a first glance) "partners" can invade my privacy and learn about my browsing habits.
By the way, if you are a programmer and you implement those sleazy dialogs, think about your life choices.
Previously they offered "Accept All" or "Click here to enter our deliberately confusing rat's warren of options".
I wonder if the French DPA's announcement that they will start cracking down on dark patterns like this was the impetus for the change.
Just for reference (since it is obviously needed), if someone really DOES want to slam readers in the face with a popup as the first thing they see, here is some non-confusing wording:
"Do you agree to be tracked using cookies by 134 advertising companies (link to full list)?"
Two large buttons: "Yes" "No".
Yes or No. Not "Configure", not "adjust my preferences", not "Leave" which doesn't actually leave, not "Settings" which takes you to a list of all the "partners" with individual switches, no dark patterns. Yes or no.
Even worse when the switches are made in such way that you have no idea whether you are opting-in or out.
I'm sure this stern talking to really made them evaluate their life choices. We need more people on HN to take a stand like this, downvotes be damned. We all have to be the change we want to see.
As the funding dries up the community will close ranks even more so. We are already getting to the point on this forum where anything not outwardly positive (not even "negative") said about certain subjects is instantly donwvoted. Being as how downvoting is something that requires 500 karma, these are not bots or spam accounts; they are veteran members, preventing balanced discourse from occurring ("slow down").
"We have a contract with [analytics company]. They are not allowed to look at the data."
When you suggest that a contract might not be as good as physical limitations hosting it yourself give you, they follow up with something like:
"Well, then AWS/Azure/etc. could look at it!"
What I found drives the increase of tracking on the web in big corporations, is simply the number of teams, who want data. Data is used to play internal politics. And it is easier to get a new vendor in, than to get data from a hostile team.
Times Literary Supplement:
[...] Reviews were normally anonymous until 1974 [...]
> The Dialogue Javascript communicates with the Sourcepoint messaging server on a subdomain of the site. The benefit of doing that is to allow messaging cookies to be “first party” and thus, circumventing Safari’s web browser Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP). This creates a discrete messaging channel between the publisher’s messaging subdomain and the Dialogue messaging server. Once you have created the subdomain, you should create a DNS CNAME record to direct traffic to the Sourcepoint messaging endpoint message<account id>.sp-prod.net where the account id refers to you account ID in the Sourcepoint user interface
Luckily uBlock Origin now supports blocking on CNAME records and PiHole is rolling support out for it as well. I maintain a blocklist that I use with the PiHole: https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/
[1] https://documentation.sourcepoint.com/web-implementation/sou...
Is there any other way to wildcard block full domains in Pi-Hole?
Look for example in your list: d41.co, admaster.com.cn, mixmarket.biz chances are extremely slim that all (current) hostnames of those type of domains are currently being blocked.
You are not able to block something like 'ads.%.adhost.com', but only (prepending wildcard) '%.ads.adhost.com', which in practice will cover almost all scenarios where random subdomains are used by adhosts.
No, it's not. Is there something wrong with their implementation?
I think the logic underlying this sentiment is never consistently applied. Do we call out the people working on Tor or encryption because of how it is used by some to cause harm? Do we call out the other negative results of a person's job (tax money going to a war machine is pretty common for those in the US)? Do we call out the person cooking burgers at the local fast food joint for the effects our fast food consumption has on our health as a whole? Do we call out doctors who are members of groups that limit the supply of doctors, thus increasing prices and resulting in people getting less healthcare coverage?
What about the people who are against unions, which may be a factor in why some choose not to risk their job opposing implementing data gathering on their own website?
I am pretty sure, they thought alotabout the pros and cons of their work and decided a long time ago that the positive outweight the negative a lot. But what is the social positive in intentional programming dark pattern UI? I don't see any.
Disagreeing it is a dark pattern to begin with. For example, see how many people love opt out consent for organ donation and overlook the consent implications it has in that case. Another example is requiring email address at signup, is that actually needed and is it a dark pattern to not allow a person to sign up until they provide one, even though a more industrial user could give you a fake/temporary email address?
Seeing the data as not actually worth protecting and not having an issue with opt out or the like.
Thinking those who do care will already be using adblockers and the like.
Thinking it would be done regardless if they do it, so why burn what social/political capital they have achieving no difference when they can save it for something that might have an actual impact.
The irony of the text that says "we care about your privacy" while simultaneously hiding the "deny all" button is profound.
Don't rely upon it to exist.
Serve up well marked content, CSS that might format it nicely, and JavaScript that allows some types of per-validation to happen client side but only as a means of making a page nicer. The server side should STILL perform all data validation, normalization, and verification (assume someone will craft their own form submission).
Twitch could be done with a native app... the phone versions SHOULD be done with such if they aren't.
As another poster commented, the video aspect can be fulfilled with a number of different methods, and I don't see any technical reason a standard couldn't be followed to allow for arbitrary clients to handle that interaction as well.
As for video streaming, that's not hard at all, especially now that there's a <video> tag.
It's not one of those sites where the content can be easily found in the source of the page either. The latter appears to be, at a cursory inspection, consist of tracking scripts, furthering the irony of this demonstration.
At least a site that calls itself "the TLS" is served via HTTPS...
I browse the web with cookies off for sites by default. It's an option in almost every browser.