Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by kontiki | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

kontiki

I remember when zuckerberg called users of facebook "dumb fucks" for trusting him

http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-use...

those words will haunt the world some day

View on HN

I don't think it will. He is already a very rich man.

Actually, ...it could, if someone pulled a number on him like they did on the LifeLock guy.

Guy says one thing, and you hold him accountable for 7 years.

It's very much in line with how his company acts, so why not?

I don't have enough fingers to count the amount of people I have met who refer to their customers as 'dumb fucks' (or something similar). Instead of holding him accountable for what he said 7 years ago lets hold him accountable by his actions I think this is more fair.

Whenever I think about Facebook and the vast number of people using it, that quote is all I can remember.

Are people too dumb to care about their own privacy or do they just not care?

I use Facebook constantly, posting photos, checkins, status updates, etc. However, I've completely disabled all privacy controls. Why? Because I don't put things on the Internet that I don't want to be public, even behind 'privacy controls'. There's no breech of privacy for me, because the data is inherently public. So no, I don't care.

"inherently public"

Exactly.

The ideas of a "Facebook" _as Zuckerberg has constructed it_, i.e. a website on the open internet, and "privacy" are incompatible.

When I was growing up, I was always told never to put your real information on the Internet. As I grew older, I simply changed around my "real" details a bit. So, my Facebook does not have my real identity, I like stuff that... I don't like.

Like I've said before, if you don't want people to know, don't post it on the Internet.

Funny thing is though, the people that told me not to put info up on the 'net... didn't listen to their own advice. lol

well you can put fake info about yourself but doesn't mean your friends will put fake info in for you. Also, I'm sure marketers have a special category for people who lie about their age and name and have products ready to sell to that group. There is no escape. ;p

The only privacy filters a person really needs are sobriety and discretion.

There are advantages to using FB that might outweigh the serious privacy concerns. For instance, FB might help me maintain connections with people I might not consider close friends, but acquaintances I might later like to tap in the future. Connections, etc. Or maybe I move to a new city and don't know anyone and that could be nice.

That doesn't mean there isn't a cost associated with using FB. There is, and it should be weighed more carefully than it is. But that doesn't make someone an idiot for deciding that a public presence is worth the privacy violations.

Whenever people suggest that Facebook users are morons for actively using the service, they're empowering Zuckerberg to continue his mission. The problem isn't stupidity or even ignorance, but rather Facebook's data mining crusade that's fueled by a veritable carte blanche: contracts of adhesion.

Contracts of adhesion prevent us from negotiating which services we receive at what price. We can either accept Facebook's terms or not use the service. Period. Usually, this isn't a problem, but Facebook started off small. It grew into a service with network effects strong enough to actually raise a viable argument that we agree to the terms of service under duress and therefore never manifest assent.

It's a unique legal situation: generally, people offended by a company's practices can boycott. However, Facebook has turned us into the product, and while we can leave, our friends might not. The underlying purpose served by Facebook requires its community, a community that grew before establishing the invidious privacy practices.

The technological difficulty of building a Facebook replacement is compounded by challenge of convincing not just one user to switch, but enough of them to guarantee a tipping point. Not discounting the technological difficulty, I think more of the focus should be on an "exit" plan from Facebook. Google+ nailed the technology, but completely blew their Facebook evacuation plan.

As another commenter pointed out, Zuckerberg once called users "dumb fucks" for giving him their personal information. If he does not believe in privacy, as he now claims, why would he say that?

They do care, but facebook is basically public. They continue to use it knowing that, and it likely has a strong impact on what they put on facebook, whether the users are conscious of that or not. What isn't talked about much is what facebook could look like - you know, if they respected their users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com