FFFG: Freedom from Facebook and Google
freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com
freedomfromfacebookandgoogle.com
If you then navigate to the privacy policy on that site, it contains stuff like:
"For example, we may use remarketing with Google Analytics or other remarketing tools to advertise online. This enables third-party vendors, including Google, to show our ads on sites across the Internet...."
When I click the link in the hamburger menu, I'm getting sent to https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/privacy-policy/.
Edit 1: looks like they're affiliated: https://www.economicliberties.us/about/:
> The American Economic Liberties Project launched in February 2020 to help translate the intellectual victories of the anti-monopoly movement into momentum towards concrete, wide-ranging policy changes that begin to address today’s crisis of concentrated economic power.
> Economic Liberties is led by Sarah Miller, who served as the Deputy Director of the Open Markets Institute and has been recognized as “one of the primary architects of the modern antitrust movement.” As concern over concentrated economic power has broadened beyond the community of antitrust reformers, Economic Liberties has quickly grown into a hub for organizing a diverse set of leading policy experts and advocates in areas impacted by concentrated power, ranging from community development to national security to entrepreneurship.
Edit 2: it looks like their privacy policy (https://www.economicliberties.us/privacy-policy/) is boilerplate language that appears identically on by many, many other sites. For instance:
https://www.andrewcuomo.com/privacy
https://clairemccaskill.com/privacy-policy/
Perhaps these are ironic inclusions meant to highlight how hard it is to live without Facebook and Google.
I doubt it. The probable story is that they outsourced their website to some 3rd party firm to build, since they're a policy organization not a tech organization. That 3rd party probably based the site off a pre-existing design of theirs that used those inclusions, rather than build a custom Mister-Gotcha-immune site.
> How do they expect others to get free from FB and Google when they themselves are on Facebook and Instagram?
I'm guessing it's because Facebook and Instagram users are exactly their target audience.
I quit Facebook several years ago, but I kept my account and continued to occasionally post news articles to my timeline about their scandals and how social media is personally bad for its users. I did this because I figured it would actually help them for me to just delete my account and disappear to their other users, and the best thing to do was to use their own platform to subvert them.
The website doesn't have to rely on React, Google analytics & CDN, et al. This is a simple website that could have been written in plain HTML and CSS, with server-side analytics if desired.
Edit: That might be from one of the plugins they're using on their WIX CMS though.
I think what the site says is basically true, but also I think it's vaguely disingenuous.
I have always thought in my mind for my self I need to lessen Google in my life and then Amazon. As I explain below FB isn’t an issue for me personally though of course for others it is.
— To the point of FB vs Google:
Facebook has more for sure and I bring up the 3 of their big 4 properties below. But point stands to me.
I block major FB domains and sub domains along with FB and it’s properties on my desktop and jailbroken iPad (hosts file) where I spend the majority of my time.
I think I don’t block certain google things because it gets hard to navigate with certain sub domains of theirs blocked if you’re not on a crusade which I’m not. Also their CDN is pretty widely used for fonts scripts etc.
I do have occasional use of FB Messenger, Whatsapp, and IG which all happen on my iPhone. So they are getting more stuff prob than I think.
i haven’t kept up with numbers as recently but IG has ~1.2B users, FBM has ~1.5B, Whatsapp a bit more than that. FB with 2.2B or so. I think those are monthly active users. With tons of overlaps of course.
I am assuming Facebook won’t give their number of unique people overall using their services as people here and elsewhere would decry that as a huge invasion even though we know they know some estimate :p.
But I am wondering how Amazon is surging to a distant 3rd place for ads. I think one reason might be that usually Microsoft (which I would think is mostly MSN, any other major site they own, and Bing) and LinkedIn are separated?
I know Amazon has sponsored items in multiple places around Amazon.com. Amazon is big enough that those placements alone could put them as the distant third. But I wonder if they do anything outside that.
Different note. Yahoo failed miserably at trying to compete with Google Adsense. I’m a bit surprised there’s never been a team up effort among some combo of the remaining players, or Facebook themselves trying to go at it. Adsense makes much less money than AdWords. Not sure how much less it does on top of splitting the money with the websites, but Facebook has enough ads and tech most likely. Facebook’s rep is pretty bad compared to other top tech companies, but Adsense has grumbling going on and Amazon pulled a lot of their affiliate stuff with covid19 giving them more orders than they can deal with.
This would be a great time for Facebook or some combo like Facebook and Microsoft making competitors to major Google services. Namely Adsense and Analytics. Though Analytics probably isn’t worth it for Microsoft since user data isn’t as prized for them and the anti-Facebook sentiment amongst vocal Internet crowd could be enough to not make even attempting that worth it. Even though I have a hard time seeing how the current, what, 90% market share Google Analytics and 80%+ Adsense have for their markets would be any worse off with an equally user privacy offensive company (FB) joining the fray and taking 1/4 or so of the market over time.
At the very least an FB[/Msft] Adsense alternative would immediately be a possible boon for people banned from Adsense or shaken up by Adsense issues. And Amazon affiliate things never coming back to how they were.
Welp. Shit. This is super long too
https://www.quad9.net/result/?url=freedomfromfacebookandgoog...
https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/url/freedomfromfacebook...
Might be a false positive probably because bad stuff came from the same subnet of the web server; might be just a byproduct of shared hosting
On first look it reminded me of conservative posts with a lot of outrage but no solution.
2) if you actually care about privacy, stop feeding those beast with your data. Self-host what you can, use alternative services for the rest.
(That said, I still use g-suite for email and shared docs).
I'm definitely biased here, but "dangerous" content does not exist -- only dangerous people. But then again, I get called a "free speech extremist" nowadays so what do I know?
I think free speech extremism is apt as a description here because a sort of worldview where only humans have agency is extremely mistaken.
And it should be pointed out that most societies don't agree with this at all, and as is becoming more evident, neither does the American society in general.
In this era of modern mass communication there hasn't been any social consensus on the nature or acceptance of speech, it's a purely inherited position, ironically enough.
that's true. There's a hefty f'in fee.
Everyone has to chip in their buck-o-five
That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school.
Real free speech involves identifying the sources of lies and falsehoods and working to eliminate or minimize their effects.
> That isn't the cost of free speech. If it was, we wouldn't mind it if teachers taught kids kooky conspiracy theories in school.
Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools? I've italicized the differences.
You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
> You're not responding to what iamstupidsimple said, you're responding to a straw man.
Yes I am. If we're "free speech extremists" who believe "freedom isn't free. We pay for freedom of speech in whatever tragedy comes from spreading of 'fake news' or whatever because society has generally agreed it's better than tyranny." Why should we tolerate the tyranny of restricting the free speech rights of a conspiracy theorist teacher? Shouldn't we rely on the students' critical thinking and willingly pay the price if it turns out to be inadequate?
> Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools?
Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean society can't recognize conspiracy theories are detrimental and take action to retard their spread (such as the government firing a conspiracy theorist teacher or taking antitrust action against social media platforms). Free speech doesn't mean a particular amplification mechanism has to exist and be tolerated.
We shouldn't. They're welcome to say whatever they want.
We're not obligated, however, to pay them to say it. Free speech never obligates anyone to do anything. It merely obligates us to not do one thing: prevent others from saying things.
> > Can we agree there are difference between allowing someone to spread conspiracy theories in public, and paying them to spread conspiracy theories in our schools?
> Yes we can, and I was indirectly alluding to that. Free speech means people are allowed to spread conspiracy theories in public, but that doesn't mean the government cannot change laws and practices that make that too easy.
No, that's not the difference, and no, you weren't alluding to anything I said.
In one case you're passively allowing them to say what they want. In the other case you're actively paying the to say what they want. You're in favor of not passively allowing people to say things, I'm for passively allowing people to say things.
But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively paying people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look stupid, when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.
You're misreading my position, and kinda missing the point I was trying to make to fixate on little part of the example I used.
> But you're pretending that free speech advocates should be for actively paying people to teach conspiracy theories, so you can make their view look stupid, when in fact that's never what free speech advocates were for.
No, I'm not. I may have been doing a bad job, but the general idea I was trying to get at was that you can judge a tree by its fruit, and that bad (sometimes poison) fruit exists. If we find ourselves with trees that produce too much bad fruit, changes can and should be made to improve the situation, and that doesn't mean bad fruit will be banned entirely or only one kind will be allowed. Maybe you cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees, etc. But I think it's unreasonable to say that too much bad fruit (and a few poisonings) are just the cost of having fruit.
There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in a society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results may be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a mistake to assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."
People who say bad things aren't poisonous fruit trees. A poisonous fruit tree always produces the same fruit because genetics, but people can and do change their minds and say different things over time. And when you say you want to "cut down one big tree and replace it by several, smaller trees" I'm going to assume you aren't suggesting we start killing people, but I really don't know what you are suggesting.
> There's not just one free speech system (i.e. people can have free speech in a society that allows megaphones, and in one that doesn't, but the results may be better or worse because of the difference), and I think it's a mistake to assume the costs of one system are the costs of "free speech."
It's true that there's more than one free speech system, but let's be clear: any system which determines what people are allowed to say, or who is allowed to speak based on what they say, isn't a free speech system.
The core problem is that if you start determining what people are allowed to say and what people aren't allowed to say, you have to put someone in charge of enforcing that. In the context of social media censorship, that's literally a proposal that we put amoral corporations in charge of what people are and aren't allowed to say. I don't trust Facebook with that power; I don't trust anyone with that power. In forums that I moderated back in the day, I didn't trust myself with that power.
For example, let's talk about racist speech. I think we both agree that we don't want people to say racist things. But which of the following are racist statements? And how would you moderate them?
1. The Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group.
2. The New Black Panthers are a militant black liberation group.
3. Affirmative action is discriminatory.
4. Black people are more likely to be convicted of crimes.
And more importantly, who would you trust to make the right choices in whether to censor these statements?
I dunno, I went to public schools...
Anyway, transparency is key and I'd be more than happy if all targeted ads had to reveal their audiences to prevent abuse like you're describing.
A lot of problems in the world if we could wave a magic wand and give everyone critical thinking skills, but without that wand, throwing every vulnerable teenager into the deep end of toxic content will mean that some drown.
Not having any real contact info is not encouraging either.
Compare this to the FFFG people advocating for using using government force to control others' behavior. This may solve the problems FFFG perceives but the "solution" does more damage (in terms of actually hurting people) than the problem.
- "like" and "share" buttons on completely unrelated web sites that track your IP when your web browser downloads the images for these buttons or runs the associated javascript
- people you know tagging you in photos they upload of you to these sites
- recaptchas on unralated sites that collect data about your IP, browser fingerprint, and site you're visiting
There are doubtlessly many, many, many other techniques they (and sites and companies you probably have no idea are owned by them and that feed data back in to them) use that don't require you to be on their sites to cyberstalk and spy on you.
They don't because I don't leave javascript execution on like grandma opening every email attachment she receives.
Other people's behaviors are their business but it's pretty easy to ask people not to upload photos of you. And if it happens, well, it's actually not a big deal.
Google recaptchas are super annoying and require whitelisting google javascript so I don't go to sites that block me with them.
So you see how taking responsibility for my own behavior works here and I don't need people with guns to coerce other people and cause far more damage than the original "problem".
Or that web tracking is not a problem because he always uses Tor.
Or that emails sent and stored in plain text are not a problem because he always encrypts them with gpg.
Well, you have to realize that the vast majority of people don't, and there's a massive societal impact of such widespread surveillance.
The security-conscious technical elite who are willing to live a digitally monastic lifestyle (as Stallman does when he refuses to browse the web except through email) might be able to avoid some of that surveillance (though even then most of them admit they would be unable to stop surveillance by a well financed and determined adversary), but most everyone else either can't, won't, or don't realize there's a problem.
The result is a digital dystopia that we're already in, but that's growing worse by the day. The consequences of it have already been felt by dissidents, victims of harassment, stalking and identity fraud, and increasingly by kids who grow up thinking a world without privacy is natural. It's only bound to get worse from here.
It's like the guy knows the people with the cameras are jerks and doesn't go to their house for BBQ.
Take a look at the ubiquity of cameras in London for an example. Cameras are everywhere, and you'll be on hundreds if not thousands of them on a typical day walking around London. They're on street corners, in shops, restaurants, apartment building hallways, schools, playgrounds, tennis courts, parks, and pretty much everywhere else you go to.
As an individual, you only option for not being videotaped is to stay home. All your finger wagging about these people being jerks isn't going to change a thing.
I also really don't get why you're fixated on guns as being the only solution. You could simply make laws against it, and if they don't comply you could fine people/companies, or take away their business licenses. No guns necessary.
Don't live in metaphorical London. You don't have to. It's your choice. You don't need to call in people who threaten to use physical force to get their way. Just take responsibility and move.
Video surveillance is just one example too, web tracking, tagging people in photos, facial recognition, email surveillance, spyware, workplace surveillance, profiling of various kinds, and much more is getting more and more prevalent as the technology that allows it becomes more sophisticated, cheaper, and widely available.
Yes, you could try to move to more and more rural locations, further and further away from other people that might spy on you, disconnect yourself as much as possible from the internet (as Stallman has), and maybe, if no one powerful or knowledgeable enough cares about you, you might sneak under the radar and be free.
But what about your kids? What about your family? What about your friends or the rest of society? Most people aren't willing to go to such extremes, even if they have the means, knowledge, and care enough to do so.
No. The solution can not be individual. That's failed for decades now.
Collective action must be taken. Not violent action, but legal and financial action, and educating more people about why it matters and what they can do apart from trying to run away.