Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

[Psamathe]

Back in 2004, when a 19-year-old Zuckerberg had just started building Facebook, he sent his Harvard friends a series of instant messages in which he marvelled at the fact that 4,000 people had volunteered their personal information to his nascent social network. “People just submitted it ... I don’t know why ... They ‘trust me’ ... dumb ..........”

Fourteen years later, the number of people who have trusted Zuckerberg with their data has grown from 4,000 to 2 billion.

Ian

[AlaninWales]

If you're worried that snaps may be embarrassing or career threatening then I'm not completely convinced that your standards of etiquette, social responsibility and self-preservation match mine.
I certainly have no such fears.

Even where it isn't really you but you can't prove it?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731690-200-face-faking-ai-isnt-just-for-porn-it-will-change-the-world/

[kwackers]

Even where it isn't really you but you can't prove it?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731690-200-face-faking-ai-isnt-just-for-porn-it-will-change-the-world/

Yep.
I'm hung like a donkey.

In some ways photoshop already takes away any certainty. Face faking is just photoshop on steroids with the ability to work with video.
There are ways around it. Cameras could generate certificates for images and video to prove their originality, although probably more for 'evidential' systems rather than JP's.
But ultimately if you can't trust what you can see then it also applies to others who think they've just seen you in a porn shoot, when nobody can trust images or video then privacy is less of a concern.

[bovlomov]

No, I don't agree with that but they've been found out, there's a lot of noise and stuff will happen because of it so it's all good.

If the illegal activities of Facebook and CA have given us Trump and Brexit, I'd argue that it's very far from good.

You'd rather they hadn't been found out?

Blimey! Is that what you took from my reply?

No, I wouldn't rather they hadn't been found out. But this is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to illegal data harvesting, and secondly, finding them out won't undo the damage. It isn't 'all good'. I hope that's clear enough.

Prior to the internet we had newspapers, if you think they didn't have agenda's, money pumped in from dodgy places and didn't influence stuff they had no right fiddling with you'd be wrong.

Blimey again! I made no such suggestion. I was making several points about new technology with regard to the collection, use and distribution of data (the subject of the OP). When I comment on that subject I do not imply that 1) everything I do not mention is OK, or that 2) there are no other problems in the world.

All media social or otherwise and including this one is guilty of warping opinion.

The methods under discussion are new.

Why are you on here? Might it be because it's fundamentally an echo chamber for your cyclist-centric beliefs?

Or might it be fundamentally more complex?

More generally, the problem is with the speed of development.

Is there? I suspect most youngsters (who in the main have long since departed FB for pastures new) would disagree.
Personally so would I. So much possibility out there and we're barely scratching the surface.

You seem to have missed the point. The speed of development is a problem (I contended) in relation to social norms and the law. I am not suggesting that technological development necessarily needs to be slowed.

If you're worried that snaps may be embarrassing or career threatening then I'm not completely convinced that your standards of etiquette, social responsibility and self-preservation match mine.
I certainly have no such fears.

Well good for you. Now let me explain. I proposed a range between two possible outcomes - embarrassment to career threatening. Do I really need to spell it out?

There may be a family dispute (common enough). Suppose one person is so traumatised that they can't bear to even think of the other (no crimes committed). And imagine that someone is stuck between the two factions, trying to keep friendly with both. Then imagine they go to a party where they are photographed with one of the estranged family members, and it goes straight to Facebook. I could give similar examples with more dramatic outcomes, involving abuse victims and violence.

I'm pleased that you have no such fears for yourself.

[mjr]

MPs attempting to shame Zuckerberg into answering their questions http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ ... TE=DEFAULT

[kwackers]

There may be a family dispute (common enough). Suppose one person is so traumatised that they can't bear to even think of the other (no crimes committed). And imagine that someone is stuck between the two factions, trying to keep friendly with both. Then imagine they go to a party where they are photographed with one of the estranged family members, and it goes straight to Facebook. I could give similar examples with more dramatic outcomes, involving abuse victims and violence.

I'm pleased that you have no such fears for yourself.

And in another universe Trump gets such a shock from seeing his missus in bed with me he loses it and presses the red button.

If we want to invent circumstances to justify our arguments then we'll be here all day. There isn't a human activity going that we can't do that for.

Stuff is public, get over it and move on.
In the meantime the upshot of this is there'll be even more tickboxes on your favourite social media for those who enjoy ticking them.

[bovlomov]

Stuff is public, get over it and move on.

If you'd only said that at the beginning, you wouldn't have needed to build all those straw men.
Anyway, as you've invoked the internet door-slam ("get over it"), I will reply with "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

[Mick F]

FaceBook.
No, not on it and no real intention of being on it either, though Mrs Mick F is addicted to it.

I was thinking about it some time back. I was wanting to stay in contact with some people from my school days, but I was unwilling to put my real name and address on there, so was planning on a false set of info - name, age etc. I'd emailed all these people and told them of my intention.

Trouble is, although they would know who I was despite my pseudonym, they would be using their real names, so my cover could well have been blown to the world. If all of the FaceBook users used Usernames, none of this sorry mess could have happened.

I'm well aware that if someone wanted to trawl through this forum, they could get all sorts of info about me, but it's not info or any data that is of any use to the ill-disposed. If anyone wants to know where we live, all they need to do is come to Gunnislake and ask someone over a beer or two in any of the pubs.

[661-Pete]

You know, I can't help wishing for the egregious Mr Z to face the same treatment as was meted out (unjustifiably?) to Mr Gates all those years ago. A more thoroughly deserving villain, our MZ is, in my opinion...

[kwackers]

If you'd only said that at the beginning, you wouldn't have needed to build all those straw men.
Anyway, as you've invoked the internet door-slam ("get over it"), I will reply with "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

Can't really use a straw man to argue against made up scenarios...

Social media is by definition public, if you're worried someone will post a picture of you on it that you wouldn't want anyone else to see then I fail to see what that's got to do with anyone else or why it's indicative of some sort of failure of social media and to top it all what's it got to do with the OP?

[kwackers]

If all of the FaceBook users used Usernames, none of this sorry mess could have happened.

Which fundamentally breaks the thing that made FB a success. The ability to be on and be found by folk searching for you.
Pseudonyms are pointless for anything other than generalities (like this forum). There are also advantages to preventing people hiding behind them.

That's not to say folk don't use them, or that folk don't have multiple accounts...

[Mick F]

Our primary school was in Swinley, Wigan. Since demolished.
I was going to use the name "Michael Swinley" ......... much to amusement of my old school chums.

AFAIK, there's no checks to see if who you say you are on FB.
Same as registering with the BBC or using public WiFi. Make it up and invent stuff ............ be who you want to be.

[thirdcrank]

Repeating proverbs and sayings doesn't necessarily make them true, but "knowledge is power" has a pretty good pedigree.

Of more recent origin is "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is another one worth thinking about.

When talking about knowledge it's generally assumed to be scientific knowledge, but I'd say that personal knowledge of the type being gathered here "on an industrial scale" offers a sinister sort of power. We often hear "Orwellian" bandied about in this sort of context, but his concept of Room 101 - not the lightweight telly programme that insults 1984 - comes to mind

[bovlomov]

If you'd only said that at the beginning, you wouldn't have needed to build all those straw men.
Anyway, as you've invoked the internet door-slam ("get over it"), I will reply with "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

Can't really use a straw man to argue against made up scenarios...

Well, you began by suggesting that my friend could have changed his privacy settings, even though I'd clearly said that he didn't have a Facebook account.

I disputed that an outcome was "all good", as you had claimed, and you twisted that into a suggestion that I would have preferred that AC and FB weren't found out.

You suggested I would be wrong if I believed something that I had never even hinted at, and then asked whether I was on this forum for a reason that you had imagined out of thin air.

A bunch of non sequiturs, insinuations, straw men and insults, in other words.

[Vorpal]

Argue nicely, please