Facebook Gets it. Google Doesn’t. | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Gets it. Google Doesn’t.

uncrunched.com

43 pointsMcKittrick42 comments

> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users

This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe this[1]. Facebook's entire history is anti-privacy from the very beginning (here's a nice list: http://pleasedeletefacebook.com) and they do their business a disservice by not collecting as much as possible. Facebook users don't care about privacy; it's the reason they still use the service even after every privacy violation.

Trying to spin this into a Facebook vs Google match is absurd. Facebook wants all of your data just as much as Google. They're called Big Data for a reason and information is their currency.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962

When you want companies to change their behavior, it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts.

Zuckerberg used to say "real name for eveything." Later he said he could see good reasons to remain anonymous online sometimes. And this "anonymous login" feature sounds great.

Meanwhile Google is forcing everyone into creating Google Plus pages, real name usage on YouTube, lining all services into one, etc.

Look at the arc of their actions--the trend. I think Arrington got this one right. Facebook is improving their treatment of privacy as Google is getting worse.

> it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts

Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such thing as "anonymous" to Facebook. That's antithesis to their business. This is purely a PR play.

By the way, we learned from the AOL data breach in 2006 that "anonymous" doesn't actually exist on the internet[1]. So let's not pretend Facebook is trying to do us all a great favor.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?page... "A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749"

I didn't think that it would change magically either, which is why I asked the question I mentioned in another comment.

It's important to realise to whom you will be anonymous using that feature.

You'd be anonymous to client sites, but Facebook will still know exactly which apps you've signed up for.

eg Facebook knows that you use Grindr even if you signed in 'anonymously'

Your dichotomy is as silly as Arrington's; narrative arcs based on what turns out to not even be based on real life events, but actually the absence of knowledge of events because you weren't paying attention.

As far as I can tell they both still require at least pseudo real names, the absence of which will get you flagged. Facebook just had a thing in the news like 6 months ago where they were demanding government IDs from people to unfreeze their accounts.

Here's the help page:

> We require everyone using Facebook to use their real name and birthday. This way, you always know who you're connecting with. When we discover accounts that look fake or like they’re using fake information, we ask the owner to confirm that they are who they say they are.

https://www.facebook.com/help/385569904840341

I avoid ever using Facebook login, but I think this new anonymous login is great, will be a boon to users (though not offering those users privacy from facebook itself, as others are focusing on) and I'd like to see a lot more of that in Android itself (especially those per-function permissions).

But what exactly has happened to Mark Zuckerberg's opinion on privacy since the early days of Facebook for example is still an important question, especially if trust is to be regained.

>information is their currency

Correction: our information is their (wholly owned) asset. Between the two companies they've managed to honeypot the entire human race - and managed to get us all to do the data-entry for them. It's an incredible story, one that will have repercussions for a very long time.

Perfect observation and you're right - the outcome of this social media explosion will be terrifying. Couldn't help but think of:

"People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are."

― Max Barry, Lexicon

For anyone who is too lazy to read, something like 80% of these links are opinion and conjecture, 10% are things that people did reacting to information that Facebook users made public, 5% are unsubstantiated, and 5% are genuine privacy issues.

Not even close. Even the EFF archives and acknowledges a lot of these cases.

Not every link is weighted equally. Let's talk about:

* Partnering with data brokers

* Deliberately changing users privacy settings

* Beacon (remember that?)

* Shadow profiles

* Everyone searchable via Graph

* Charges from the FTC

* "Deleted" information not actually deleted

* Like buttons on websites tracking you

* User profile data (photos and names) being used in advertisements

...it goes on and on.

You're employed by Google who also deals primary in the data of users. Are any of these issues relevant or important to you?

There is literally only one intentional privacy issue in that list from the last year, out of ten or fifteen posts. There were several exploited vulns, and a compliance issue (prism), but the only privacy violation facebook intentionally made during that period, at least according to this list, is removing the ability to hide from name searches.

And the issues you don't consider issues somehow make all the "genuine" issues irrelevant? You know, Facebook's entire history of not giving a shit about privacy. Not only stepping up to the "creepy line" (like your employer, Google), but blazing past it in complete disregard.

The game is: see how much you can get away with and deal with the consequences later through PR or other distractions. "Move fast and break things."

No . . . the genuine issues are still issues. There is no need to inflate them by pretending there is a multi-page laundry list and posting a bunch of things that are either not Facebook's fault, or not privacy violations, or both. I wouldn't have said anything at all if the site contained only or even mostly real issues.

The website keeps tracks of "reasons" why using Facebook is a bad idea. That can mean privacy violations (which there is a clear history of and are overwhelming) or issues as a result of a user sharing too much information. Either way, all real issues, "opinion and conjecture" aside. Even what you claimed to be "5% genuine privacy issues" is damning.

Instead of dismissing the list as mostly irrelevant, you could have pulled out the important issues for discussion as I did.

There is still enough that are genuine issues that I thought there was a question that was worth asking.

? I don't know anything about you or your question.

I posted it on Quora, as I mentioned in another comment.

Still not clear why you're telling me about this, but ok.

I'm not a developer but is it true that while an App developer who enables Facebook Anonymous login wouldn't know their users--But FaceBook would? If so ouch.

I asked this for a reason:

http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-o...

I wonder if I should ask this on Secret.

Arrrrrington is off his rocker again. Harkening the death of Google and Google+ as if he'd spent enough time around there to know what he's talking about.

He doesn't even bother researching the technology he's writing about

> "I don’t know the details"

Yet he tries to pass it off as some miraculous milestone. It's an interesting feature set that I've never thought about before, and I've never seen envisioned before. An identity platform that doesn't reveal your identity. Bringing all the joys of single sign-on without any of the permissions.

But he then uses it as an excuse to complain and whine about Google+, which while some of us have reasons against it concerning anonymity and privacy, remains a brilliant identity platform that's done wonders for any service it's been integrated in - at least for me personally.

There's a reason I don't have Uncrunched in my RSS reader anymore, and it has a LOT to do with how he's completely let his emotions overrule any journalistic integrity he might have once had.

Research isn't exactly his forte. I've had to experience that myself.

Doesn't matter which large company "gets" it -- what we really need is a good, decentralized, easy to use, open, optionally-anonymous identity system on the web. Easy-to-use being the key feature.

Until that happens, whether it's FB or Google or whomever else, we're stuck as the "product, not the consumer" (as Arrington correctly puts it).

How does Mozilla Persona satisfy your requirements?

It doesn't, however I think Mozilla is the one organization that could pull it off.

1) They've basically killed it

2) It's just a Facebook Connect clone, without your social graph (no incentive for the implementor)

3) Normal people had no clue what "Persona" was; it was confusing (no incentive for the user)

4) Not decentralized enough (they wanted it to be; just never got there.)

5) Not enough integration with the browser (also wanted it; never got there)

I realize the final two are contradictions to a certain extent. There were a lot more issues with it; this is just the ones that came to mind.

I'd enjoy being able to give my users a line-item veto on permissions. It isn't really difficult to code around missing data, so I'd just assume treat it as a request up front.

Sorry, if you think Facebook "gets it", you are deluded.

It's Michael Arrington. Deluded is an understatement.

It's funny because I didn't notice that at first. Followed up with "ohhhhhh, right". :-P

Why does anyone care about this?

Both of these companies have access to your data if you use their service.

Let me repeat that.

If you use Facebook, Facebook can use and do whatever with your data.

If you use Google's services, Google can use and do whatever with your data.

If you don't want them to use your data don't use their service.

This is getting redundant people.

I hate this "gets it" mentality that gets brought into the picture anytime any product can be described with the word "social" in the description. It's a product, and taking the Hank Hill approach, the quality of the product should be the priority.

    No one uses Google+, but the whole Internet has an account there.

Author can't be so ignorant and supremely egotistical.

A friend of mine uses Google+ to post pictures. He has over a million views and an audience that he wouldn't have otherwise.

Am I the only one who feels a real mental disconnect with the people complaining about Facebook? I read interviews by developers there, where it's pretty evident that they have reasonable perspectives (i.e. they aren't evil), then I see a barrage of ridiculous vitriol. I then go to all the sites where people list "why Facebook is evil", and all I can find is misinformation, opinion, and minor understandable things blown out of proportion.

Facebook is 'evil' because their actual, factual business plan is collecting and selling your personal information. You just can't really argue your way out of that one.

No, of course I don't think the people that work there are off their rocker, or actually evil -- I just don't intend to participate in their monetization plan is all.

So this free website that serves billions of people makes money off the data you knowingly give it to target advertisements. That's what is considered evil nowadays?

Does it escape people that this is the only way we're going to get free social media or search engines? Here are the options the currently existing websites have:

  1. Free and sells data to advertisers
  2. Not free
  3. Nonexistent

If none of those options please you, then it's not some concern about malpractice, it's just being unrealistic.

A Google employee has recently posted this: https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk

That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their product is selling my information to advertisers.

Google is a dinosaur, it's sad but at this point it's pretty clear that's how it is. The top executives are detached from the way that the internet is used / moving towards. They grew up before an era where internet communication is the dominant form of communication. I hope they do great things with AI and wearables but in internet communications they are done.

Perfect linkbait title. The details matter tremendously, both companies get a lot of things.

Is this guy paid to write bullshit? WTF is he talking about? Facebook got its ass reamed by the FTC because it was retroactively changing its privacy terms, and making previously private user data, public. They are not "motivated by the privacy demands of their users."

OP is a moron.

Arrington is still around? When will he go away? Thankfully techcrunch is mostly irrelevant lately, but ugh seeing Arrington posts is enough to last awhile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com