TechCrunch: Facebook plans to let everyone unsend messages, will stop Zuckerberg until then.

Facebook retracted his chats, and is now trying to normalize the behavior.

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.

naked cap: Is It Time to Delete Facebook?

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. 

LRB: Cambridge Analytica.

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?