Wozniak said he'd rather pay for Facebook than have his personal information exploited for advertising.
Like I said, imagine the volume-play; $1 per user per month. FB *wants* to partner with commercial interests.
If you post to the internet outside of the courage of your convictions, then you're better off dead if you haven't yet died. Said before, will probably say again. We 'old schoolers' had an unwritten code, you never ever touched your archives after publishing. Zuck's behavior breaks what I consider a moral imperative. Expanding it to others, is just promoting a terrible precedent. What's next, altering history books? Serious slippery slope here. Electronic publishing makes the alteration of past works idiotically simple.
Users' data are the lifeblood of Facebook, and if they wanted to opt out of all of the platform's data-driven advertising, they would have to pay for it ...
We keep telling you people we don't mind a charge, if you leave our data out of the equation. $1/month per person, how much do you think you could make, going for the volume play?
The Tinder glitch reveals the problem with integrating Facebook into other social media apps. Although a movement to delete Facebook has gained moment among businesses, celebrities, and private users, doing so could make it more difficult to access and interact on other apps. For example, it’s possible to create a new Tinder account using a phone number, but users who had previously logged on via Facebook would lose all access to matches and conversations they accumulated.
Lose a little, gain a lot. Not fond of app sign-ins. I've always preferred to use email/password when available.
Perhaps this is the dark psychological underbelly to the unquenchable optimism/positivism on Instagram.
Perhaps folks visit Instagram through the day to believe and hope in the false perfection, and then indulge in the worst aspects of human nature to feel 'better than' in the evenings?
Look at the age of the people responding (their photos). Our seniors are being weaponized by Fox and peers, evangelicalism gone awry. Work on your parents/grandparents, people. They need a good dose of reality.
The rate limit for Instagram’s Platform API was 5,000 calls per hour, but was suddenly reduced to 200 calls per hour on Friday, sources say. In other cases, Instagram cut off access to the API for some developers entirely, sources say. None of the developers we spoke with were alerted to the changes before they happened.
Third party apps, affected?
Facebook in particular is a social media way of harnessing interpersonal linkages through the net. Its model must be using those links and the information they generate to create value for advertisers. Any user of Facebook (or Amazon) can easily see how fast browsers insert ads related to one’s most recent searches. So it becomes manifestly clear that these companies are tracking us for common advertising purposes.
Much to ponder in this article. I don't necessarily agree with the dampening of 'techno-optimism' in the last sentence, but stew a while over the rest.
In the above quote, it's the "must" that bugs me. Why don't we know? There needs to be some watchdog function to make sure our data isn't being overgathered, oversold, overanalyzed and misused.
If our only method of controlling our own interests is by opting out, well ... eventually we'll opt out. We need this theorized "New Deal on Data." It'll cost social orgs $. But for an ad-free, untracked experience, I'd happily pay a monthly fee. And I know I'm not alone.
Someone may be tempted to repost this. I call bunk, without further context. Twitter opened in July 2006, and I saw significant falloffs in readership shortly therafter as onboarding was taking place. Look at the 'start' for Twitter here. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
Interviewed for one of the Channel 4 reports, she speaks of Cambridge Analytica’s ‘massive propaganda effort [which] affected the thought processes of voters’. And yet data analysis is at the heart of modern political campaigning. Clinton, after all, preferred to study data on Michigan from the comfort of her Brooklyn campaign office than actually to visit the state, even as panicking Michigan Democrats pleaded with her to spend time there in the final weeks.
Great analysis within, with a clear historical viewpoint. But I very much enjoyed this particular observation. Go ahead, continue to lionize your fallen heroine. But if you do so, you're setting aside vital critical thinking you'll need for '20. As this undeserved worship continues, I have less and less optimism for the Democratic Party as a whole. "But she's a woman!" So was Geraldine Ferraro. Go read about Gerry sometime. She was the harbinger.
Ideological lockstep is ridiculous. I support people who deserve my support. Those numbers are thinning.
But what's really good is this quote: "For that matter, to say that a Guardian reader consents to all the ways the Guardian uses their data (which they deposit every time they visit the website) is to misunderstand the essentially malleable nature of data itself. Its potential value and use emerges after one has collected it, not before."
We lapse into allowing our data on these services, but they can become weaponized against us after the fact.
Makes you rethink all those lovely little smartphone-pingers you signed up for, no?
Rather than stop using a service you find valuable and miss out on those adorable photos of your nephew, we think you should have tools to limit what data others can collect about you.
More like the old days. Face a problem, the programming community would respond.