659087

Then you should talk to Bitfinex/Tether about it, because it's on their website.

They must be spreading FUD about themselves, right?

> It's quite possible in 20 years that 0.000000000001 of a bitcoin will make the average house payment

No, it isn't.

They're also willing to perform mass psychological experiments on hundreds of thousands of people without consent. I suppose we should be thanking them for that as well?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10932534/Face...

> co's like Facebook that not only has access to far more imagery of faces tied to sentiments and moments but have shown time and time again that privacy is a secondary concern

It's only a secondary concern in the sense that they're trying to find new and innovative ways to violate it. If it weren't for that, it wouldn't be a concern for them at all.

Increasing your attack surface is never a good idea, even when you're already potentially at risk.

My clients would stop doing business with me if I had these in my office, and I wouldn't blame them.

If you're not wrong, please explain to me what miners are - if not a third party that receives fees.

Where do you think those fees are going? How do miners not qualify as a third party?

Miners aren't a third party?

Where exactly did you think those fees went?

> Pedophiles would be using something encrypted and anonymous anyway.

Except for the ones who apply for a job reviewing the nudes Facebook is collecting, anyway.

Zuckerberg is aiming to become president. They might not even need to pay him (outside of political favors, I'd imagine), because he's probably convinced he's building it for his future self.

It's incredible how often I see people who are "sure Bitcoin is going to be worth millions", or otherwise singing it's praises, also claiming there are "no fees".

It seems very few Bitcoin holders have ever even attempted to utilize Bitcoin. Despite holding a decent amount myself, I think things are going to get very messy when reality sets in and the market runs out of greater fools.

Experian probably already shared that with them.

> FB doesn't have my phone number

If anyone who has you in their contact list uses Facebook, I can pretty much guarantee they have your number.

Sounds like a great way to train children to interact with and trust corporate mass surveillance because it's "cute" and "fun".

> I prefer posting only articles critical of Facebook to my feed

You realize Facebook's algorithm is most likely keeping those posts well hidden from your "friends", right?

> Facebook has consistently tried to build a reputation of "shady-as-fuck" company throughout the years, and it's going to pay the price for it

Unfortunately, I think the fact that many people don't realize platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp belong to Facebook will allow them to avoid paying the price.

> What ever happened to our mantra (really Google's but it reflected the whole valley) "Don't be evil"?

The kool-aid wore off and everyone realized it never had any meaning to begin with.

> Facebook quickly becomes a tool for coercion, propaganda, and oppression.

Isn't that pretty much what Facebook always has been?

They're just testing the waters to see if they can eventually turn "verified users" into literal corporate drones without being questioned by the majority of their users.

The problem of advertisers not yet knowing how to collect every bit of data about a child's life starting at birth.

It's sad but predictable that the same people who are suggesting ideas like a "Social Network for Children", are often the ones who send their own children to "tech-free" private schools to prevent them from being exposed to the products that pay their parents' bills.

> Smart Bathroom

I'm just going to try to give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume this was meant as a joke.

> Baby Bidet

Better make it "smart" too... because what could possibly go wrong? Maybe have Google provide a wireless camera that "uses AI to verify cleanliness".

> Social Network for Children

Because it's best to start collecting data on them before they're old enough to understand what they're giving up and make an informed choice about whether or not they want advertising corporations to have an archive of their entire life. Maybe we can even incorporate the data from the "Smart Baby Bidet" and "Smart Bathroom" into the network!

The difference here being that alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you, where opiate withdrawal is just very uncomfortable.

If products like Google Allo took off with their "response suggestions", we could just stop talking all together and let Google have conversations with itself on our behalf. This seems to be the future these companies are aiming to drive us towards.

> and they forgot to cut of the data part, possibly assuming it was encrypted anyways

At the point in time when Google pulled that stunt, unprotected networks were still incredibly common. A company like Google playing dumb on that, or actually not knowing that, would be pretty sad.

Just like it was "accidental" when Google's street view cars were capturing wifi data.

Lately, it's an insider cash grab and market manipulation technique.

If it weren't for the bad PR, Logitech wouldn't have done anything here, and I doubt this is the last time they'll be trying to do the same thing since companies have been gradually getting consumers acclimated to this being "the norm".

People should still be upset about this, even after Logitech's bean counters calculated that the negative PR cost would have been greater than the cost of doing the right thing in this instance.