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

[AlaninWales]

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

Indeed, an article about why it matters and why it is bigger than FB can be found here https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731680-500-i-exposed-how-online-profiling-leaves-us-open-to-mass-persuasion/

[bovlomov]

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.

I agree. It's the sort of power that politicians are keen to make use of. The Tories, for example, were in talks with CA in autumn 2016, with an eye to influencing voters at the General Election that May pretended she wasn't going to call. I'm not sure what CA did for the Tories in the end. You could say 'Much good it did them', but perhaps an election without illegal data harvesting would have seen the Tories losing even more seats.

I've read that Obama and Hilary Clinton employed similar methods, though I don't know where they stand on illegality.

It's a difficult area to legislate on, to be sure, but the closeness of the political class to the tech giants gives little reason to believe that the will is there to even recognise the problem (pace forumites who see no problem).

[kwackers]

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.

So if he doesn't have a FB account then I don't see the problem.
Sure someone can write "Joe Bloggs in The Swann" but if they don't want to be seen to be there then why would they be with someone who could take a picture? Why would they be in a public place? Even without FB people still talk to each other.
You just seem so intent on proving what you believe you'll invent any scenario you can think to prove it.

You answer my points with irrelevant points and then when I query what you've printed you shout "straw man".
It's a bit like my pointing out that folk should cycle carefully and that leaving earlier rather than cycling carelessly would be a good thing - rather than accept that point you launch into a nonsensical argument about how they might have sleep issues and can't get up earlier!

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.

As above; my comment "all good" was entirely about the fact they had been found out and that things would change, but you couldn't simply accept that, nope, you had to claim that it wasn't "all good" and come up with another load of nonsense.

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.

Imagined? Why are you on the forum then if it's not because it's a bunch of like minded folk? For the arguments?

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

As opposed fairy tales.

[Pastychomper]

I agree. It's the sort of power that politicians are keen to make use of. The Tories, for example, were in talks with CA in autumn 2016, with an eye to influencing voters at the General Election that May pretended she wasn't going to call. I'm not sure what CA did for the Tories in the end. You could say 'Much good it did them', but perhaps an election without illegal data harvesting would have seen the Tories losing even more seats.

Given how popular most governments seem to be mid-term, I can imagine them wanting the extra help, especially if Labour was looking popular among Fa(e)cebook users. I didn't use Facebook much at the time but I've noticed since that Corbyn seems to get a barn-load of good publicity on there, or rather, a barn-load gets sent my way. (I suppose it's possible that the Tories are paying to have his image directed at my account, on the theory that someone with my habits will probably be put off by blatant astroturfing. )

Anyhow I suspect it did them a fair bit of good to reset the election clock. It increases their likely time in power after Brexit, which might in turn allow the inevitable resentment to cool off enough for them to have a chance in the next election. I'm not saying that would be a good thing, but I can imagine some Tories thinking it's worth losing a few seats for.

[mjr]

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Insulting people who show reasonable caution around untrustworthy websites is a great way to help erode privacy.

But this must be a pretty good forum because I think people haven't yet started accusing each other of wearing tinfoil hats or being censor-nazis or similar, which has happened in other discussions of this. Except on facebook - the discussions seem to get pushed down the pages pretty quickly - I think someone may have their hand on the weighting algorithm.

I didn't use Facebook much at the time but I've noticed since that Corbyn seems to get a barn-load of good publicity on there, or rather, a barn-load gets sent my way. (I suppose it's possible that the Tories are paying to have his image directed at my account, on the theory that someone with my habits will probably be put off by blatant astroturfing. )

I suspect it's more likely that FB is prioritising you seeing Corbyn-related posts most likely to deter you, rather than Tories overtly paying for it. They may be paying for it in kind now or later, but I doubt it's anything as crude and traceable as financial payment.

Unlike some social media, facebook is famously right-wing, led by former Republican fundraiser and advertiser Zuckerberg with past major investors and I think still directors including Peter Thiel (a Republican ex-Libertarian) and Elon Musk (former member of Donald Trump's advisory committees). That's why it was such big news when they finally banned Britain First's main group and leaders this month, although BF are still active on FB under pretty thin aliases like Albion First and various <TOWN> Against Islamification.

[bovlomov]

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.

So if he doesn't have a FB account then I don't see the problem.

That much is clear. I outlined exactly the problem.

Sure someone can write "Joe Bloggs in The Swann" but if they don't want to be seen to be there then why would they be with someone who could take a picture? Why would they be in a public place? Even without FB people still talk to each other.
You just seem so intent on proving what you believe you'll invent any scenario you can think to prove it.

The scenario happened. I didn't invent it. I can't help it if you fail to understand why a global database of people's movements could present any kind of unfortunate outcomes - or if you can't see the difference between people talking to each other and people posting on Facebook.

You answer my points with irrelevant points and then when I query what you've printed you shout "straw man".
It's a bit like my pointing out that folk should cycle carefully and that leaving earlier rather than cycling carelessly would be a good thing - rather than accept that point you launch into a nonsensical argument about how they might have sleep issues and can't get up earlier!

Again, would you be so kind as to direct me to my post on this matter? You have repeated this, so I suppose it must have upset you greatly. You really need to find the quote, so that I can see where I've gone wrong, if indeed I have.

EDIT: I've searched for the offending post, but cannot find it. Perhaps I haven't been using the right search terms. Or perhaps it wasn't my post at all. The mystery deepens.
EDIT: There was a heated discussion on the subject recently, but I wasn't part of it. That's probably why I had no memory of making those nonsensical arguments. Glad to have cleared myself!

In any case, it is nothing to do with the subject in hand.

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.

As above; my comment "all good" was entirely about the fact they had been found out and that things would change, but you couldn't simply accept that, nope, you had to claim that it wasn't "all good" and come up with another load of nonsense.

Well, no. I simply pointed out that damage wasn't undone by the culprits being found out. Again, that obviously upset you, for reasons I don't understand.

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.

Imagined? Why are you on the forum then if it's not because it's a bunch of like minded folk? For the arguments?

You asked whether I was here because it is an "echo-chamber" for my "cyclist-centric beliefs". Now you ask whether it is "for the arguments".

Neither (you present a rather polarised choice). I am here for discussion. I enjoy reading other people's opinions, and sometimes disagreeing with them. Usually it happens in a more civil atmosphere than this. Your comment, that I should 'get over it', seems to be motivated by a desire to stop such discussion. End of!

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

As opposed fairy tales.

Would you like me to post some links about the dangers of social media? For the record, you don't have to assume that I am advocating a complete ban, or that I think that social media is an inherently bad thing. I wouldn't want you to think that.

[Mike Sales]

Because I am a suspicious old curmudgeon this forum is the closest thing to a social medium that I have ever signed up for.

[bigjim]

I don't really understand all the angst with the Facebook thing. I'm on Facebook. My kids signed me up. It's on private but I rarely post on it. My wife and kids are always on it. I see pictures of my grand-kids regularly which IMO is great. I couldn't really care less about my privacy. I'm not a Russian in exile and not rich, famous or interesting. Just a bloke. There are a lot of cycling clubs now on Facebook, rather than websites, so I find that worth looking at. It's technology that you can use the good bits and discard the bad as far as I can see. Do object to the silly comment up thread though about old fogies and what we read or think politically. Can't do with people telling me who I am or what I think. This site as bad as Facebook then?

[thirdcrank]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that only those with something to hide need worry. A bit like the case for ID cards.

Let's accept that this sort of technology is here to stay and will develop - probably in unpredictable ways. Let's accept that it's possible to influence public opinion by understanding the feelings of the individuals and seeming to address them.

Old hat: William Shakespeare gave the world an insight when he had Mark Antony declaim, "Friends, Romans ..... etc."

But this is possible on a growing scale: I used the cliché industrial above. If by a combination of pandering to public opinion and subtly moulding it, somebody gains power, what might then be their norms to define who's normal with nothing to hide? First step: everybody signs up for the ruler's version of facebook and anybody who doesn't is presumed to have something to hide. We could even devise a name for it eg goodybag. Make membership a privilege so no goodybag benefits of any sort for anybody who doesn't enrol or who's expelled for not being a goody. Outlaws or baddies.

It couldn't happen like that, of course, and I'm being silly, if not actually paranoid. Except totalitarian rule does seem to attract totalitarian rulers who either look for scapegoats or people they deem abnormal. Religion can be a motivator: what better way to get to heaven than seeing off those who have no right to live? Those people keen to remain onside can be the most ruthless followers and enforcers of norms. It's not always clear what's happened in the past - truth may have been distorted by one side or the other - but I've heard, for example, that during the Cultural Revolution, wearing specs was enough to get somebody declaimed as intellectual.

There's one - allegedly - totalitarian state where even the ruler's praetorian guards seem to be aware that their survival depends on the right sycophantic reaction to his every word and gesture, notebooks at the ready to record any pearls of wisdom etc. (Note that I name no names in a possibly vain attempt to keep this subversion undetected.)

[bovlomov]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that only those with something to hide need worry. A bit like the case for ID cards.

And the idea that people with something to hide must be doing something illegal and/or immoral.

Let's accept that this sort of technology is here to stay and will develop - probably in unpredictable ways. Let's accept that it's possible to influence public opinion by understanding the feelings of the individuals and seeming to address them. [...]

First step: everybody signs up for the ruler's version of facebook and anybody who doesn't is presumed to have something to hide. We could even devise a name for it eg goodybag. Make membership a privilege so no goodybag benefits of any sort for anybody who doesn't enrol or who's expelled for not being a goody. Outlaws or baddies. [...]

It couldn't happen like that, of course, and I'm being silly, if not actually paranoid. Except totalitarian rule does seem to attract totalitarian rulers who either look for scapegoats or people they deem abnormal.

I think the boiling frog analogy applies here (even if it doesn't apply to actual frogs). Safeguards can be removed and due process bypassed without many people complaining. By the time they do, it is too late to do stop it. I'd argue that this is what happened with GCHQ. Under the guise of protecting us from terrorists, all of our data was hoovered up by the state, and it was done without recourse to our Parliament.

Even if you believe the data is safe in May's hands, would you say the same if Corbyn or Johnson was PM? And all future governments?

[Spinners]

Off - just never bothered to and less inclined than ever.

[Vorpal]

The case of Cambridge Analytica is evidence that even with legal safegaurds (theoretically) in place, there is still an opportunity for abuse.

I don't have anything to hide. I've never posted anything that I wouldn't want my children or boss to read, but that doesn't mean I want Big Brother gathering data on my every 'like', <3, comment, and posted photo, either. If nothing else, I take a capitalist interest in it. If my data is worth something, they ought to pay me for it.

But there is also an important privacy aspect on limiting the use of data gathered from social media. It's one thing for Facebook to identify that I like bikes, and target advertising toward bikes, bike components, etc.

But how long before companies using this data can easily tell when someone is having financial difficulties, and targets them with predatory lending, or fraudulent help? Or companies can tell that someone is in an abusive relationship, grieving, or going through other personal difficulties, and takes advantage of their vulnerability. Where do we draw the line between targetted advertising and exploitation? The line was fine enough when exploitative practices had to be somewhat local, and adverts designed for an individual were science fiction. Globalisation introduces cultural differences, reduces oversight, and makes enforcement very much more difficult.

[thirdcrank]

Some interesting stuff here:-

Metropolitan Police admits role in blacklisting construction workers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43507728

Not directly related to facebook at all, but there's a sense that one hand didn't know what the other was doing, or rather that the head was unaware of the existence of one of its hands.

[Psamathe]

....If my data is worth something, they ought to pay me for it......

I thought the "model" is that they [e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.] provide you with services for free and you provide them your information for free i.e. your provision of information is payment for their services.

To me the issue becomes where they are taking information that people (e.g. 3rd parties) have not agreed to provide.

Ian

[mjr]

I don't have anything to hide.

Doesn't almost everyone always claim that, though? Doing otherwise would seem to be almost an invitation to dig into one's past and try to uncover what it is you want kept hidden. Sometimes they may try anyway (press looking into MPs, spies looking into certain political opponents and so on) but why would anyone highlight oneself as an enticing target by admitting to having something to hide?

Or am I particularly suspicious?