The people owned the web, tech giants stole it. This is how we take it back(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
The people owned the web, tech giants stole it. This is how we take it back
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/23/people-owned-web-tech-giants-facebook-cambridge-analytica
71 comments
Every time stories of this kind come up, you can’t pretty much know that the top comment will be from a privacy-savvy commenter asking ‘why is it news?’
Why is it news to you that a large proportion of the population aren’t privacy savvy?
The same people who are worried about Facebook are still fine giving WhatsApp unfettered access to all the contacts on their phone, so it knows who their bank, dentist, and employer is. Go figure.
Why is it news to you that a large proportion of the population aren’t privacy savvy?
The same people who are worried about Facebook are still fine giving WhatsApp unfettered access to all the contacts on their phone, so it knows who their bank, dentist, and employer is. Go figure.
Or have to be told that even though '123' as a password is 'easier' for them, that no, it's really not a good idea.
As to FB, if you were there in the beginning, you can definitely watch the scope creep:
Some of us hopped on Facebook in college when it expanded from Harvard to other schools (02? 03?) and it was a completely different beast. You could add friends or people from your classes, send messages, connect with that cute girl in your class (because you could search by classes), personalize it with quotes and photos, etc. It was basically a cleaner MySpace. As it expanded, I used it as a personal address book to keep track of folks I met while abroad and could see what they're up to. Over time though, it really changed, was less useful, and I honestly had no reason to go on it except for once a year when people would chime in with a happy birthday and I would catch up with them.
I'm much more worried about how integrated Google is into my life or the flashes of guilt when I order something from Amazon, which used to book that quirky bookseller with a poorly-designed website that had free shipping (5-10 days) but is now a behemoth that sells everything on a poorly-designed website that has different tiers of shipping which might be leading to abusive practices of its workers.
As to FB, if you were there in the beginning, you can definitely watch the scope creep:
Some of us hopped on Facebook in college when it expanded from Harvard to other schools (02? 03?) and it was a completely different beast. You could add friends or people from your classes, send messages, connect with that cute girl in your class (because you could search by classes), personalize it with quotes and photos, etc. It was basically a cleaner MySpace. As it expanded, I used it as a personal address book to keep track of folks I met while abroad and could see what they're up to. Over time though, it really changed, was less useful, and I honestly had no reason to go on it except for once a year when people would chime in with a happy birthday and I would catch up with them.
I'm much more worried about how integrated Google is into my life or the flashes of guilt when I order something from Amazon, which used to book that quirky bookseller with a poorly-designed website that had free shipping (5-10 days) but is now a behemoth that sells everything on a poorly-designed website that has different tiers of shipping which might be leading to abusive practices of its workers.
We know this. Other people have just had no reason to think or care about it, despite not necessarily being stupid.
Even when the information is readily available (and obvious to those who know), if nothing prompts you to look for it, you won't see it.
Even when the information is readily available (and obvious to those who know), if nothing prompts you to look for it, you won't see it.
"We've known for years that tech companies have made their money off collecting data... The general public never cared before. "
I think the phrase "limited world view" applies to this quote.
I think the phrase "limited world view" applies to this quote.
Trump derangement syndrome in full effect. Nobody cared until the link was made to the Trump campaign benefitting from analytics research. Now it's an issue.
The scale of it's emotional impact. People feel personally affected.
That is new.
That is new.
People are made to feel personally affected because the sin has been lain on team Trump, who has become a symbol of the end of democracy and a return to fascism. Even if Trump is mostly more of the same.
Worse, the same media power that turned the election into a reality show is now aimed at tearing down its results, washing their hands in innocence and tagging it Resistance.
If they weren't upset before, then they're not upset now because it happened, they're upset the "bad" people used it to accomplish the "wrong" goals.
Worse, the same media power that turned the election into a reality show is now aimed at tearing down its results, washing their hands in innocence and tagging it Resistance.
If they weren't upset before, then they're not upset now because it happened, they're upset the "bad" people used it to accomplish the "wrong" goals.
Manipulated or not, that is how people feel. The sentiment is real and that has real world implications.
the part where the CEO bragged on camera about blackmailing opposition candidates was new.
Maybe we are agreeing, but we humans don't have sufficient cognitive resources to extrapolate every little action we take into the future and predict new things technology can enable. Our brains are always looking for shortcuts ("do what the crowd does, because there must be at least some wisdom in it"). We also have the reasonable expectation that the companies will not turn our own cognitive limitations against us (such as Nir Eyal's "Hooked" encourages), nor do we know all the tools at their disposal if they so wish, and we probably never expected that these tools could be automated.
In other words, a person who is taking all the necessary steps and doing everything right in terms of the privacy of their digital footprint, is either off the grid, or is likely considered a tin foil conspiracy theorist by peers. Human survival instinct usually overrides such thoughtfulness.
In other words, a person who is taking all the necessary steps and doing everything right in terms of the privacy of their digital footprint, is either off the grid, or is likely considered a tin foil conspiracy theorist by peers. Human survival instinct usually overrides such thoughtfulness.
Thech giants never stole the web. Governments have just failed to regulate them or failed to see the power they get with their currently vast scale. They need laws and a set of ethical rules people will leave them for breaking.
What did Facebook do that should be illegal?
Already four years ago they ran experiments [1] on how to program your mood. They built an API to your emotions, and they started selling it, without you knowing it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
Are you proposing a law against trying to manipulate people's moods?
You mean a law against non-consensual psychological experiments? Yes.
Would this not outlaw the entire field of marketing and advertising? It's essentially entirely to cause an emotional reaction that bypasses your logical need centers to encourage you to purchase something.
Not the previous commenter, but many people have looked critically at marketing and media long enough to come to exactly this conclusion, myself included.
To my mind, there is something inherently wrong about the techniques used to sway opinion about products and services. They prey on our animalian reflexes and bypass the part of the brain even capable of consent. Marketing "should" (and I don't use that word often) be prohibited to use such tactics, and instead be an exposition of the product and service and any traceable, trustworthy qualifications bestowed upon it. Such a system is still hackable (selling awards for instance), but it's a way better alternative to marketing practices than what we have today.
To my mind, there is something inherently wrong about the techniques used to sway opinion about products and services. They prey on our animalian reflexes and bypass the part of the brain even capable of consent. Marketing "should" (and I don't use that word often) be prohibited to use such tactics, and instead be an exposition of the product and service and any traceable, trustworthy qualifications bestowed upon it. Such a system is still hackable (selling awards for instance), but it's a way better alternative to marketing practices than what we have today.
I dislike advertising and I'd love to see marketing move from a "push" to a "pull" model, where consumers ask for information about products they want. It's not easy to see how we get there. Defending the right of consumers to block ads, and moving from ad-based funding to subscriptions could be a start. An outright ban on ads - I don't see how that could happen without overreaching to non-infringing speech.
This whole thread of comments seems constructed. The obvious answer to a obvously leading question ending in 3 (mine is the 4th) replies that basically disagrees with regulating advertisers. the first reply of the 3 belongs to one of the participants, but how and why would two more suddenly start participating in this thread many hours after the original post left the front page? It looks exactly like the strategy russia was using to manipulate social media conversations.
I can't comment about the other two posters, but I'm still waiting to hear how a law making it illegal to make inferences about people's behavior could possibly work. It sounds like the poster didn't think about the suggestion very carefully.
Sounds dodgy. If I give you a free refill to see how you react, I go to jail?
That’s incredibly broad. Seems over the top.
I think it should be illegal to require people to accept an agreement that enables facebook to sell their information to anyone. Not saying it is easy to do though. I guess that is part of what GDPR attempts to do in Europe. Intentions can be argued, but it is something.
When a User uses a Facebook app and the app developer gets not only a bunch of data about the User but also about everyone in the User's social graph, that should be illegal; the User's friends did not give consent.
But the user's friends did consent to have their data collected and sold when they joined the social networking site.
Oh please. If that was reslly true, they wouldn’t have the ability to opt out.
Just so I understand, the suggestion is that collecting and profiting from user information be illegal? I'm not necessarily opposed to that but it's certainly radical. Might be easier to just stop using services that do this.
It’s not about profiting, it’s about handing over data to a third party without explicit consent. And yes, I am aware that’s how the credit companies like Equifax exist, they should not.
I see, so the problem is that the data sharing is opt-out instead of opt-in? This seems reasonable, although I'd be concerned about a law where J. Random Codemonkey puts up a free game on his website and gets prosecuted for selling the analytics data.
What does analytics data have to do with it? It is neither personal nor sensitive if it is a game. Why are you trying to compare this with a social media site that can sell your sexual orientation and all your friends location to anyone. The uses are not just limited to manipulating the masses, it could also be used by kriminals or foreign governments who are looking for weaknesses among public officials (for example through their families). Analytics from a game (or any small app) cannot tell you these things on a useful scale and granularity.
That depends on the game and how the site is implemented. It could very well collect or infer that data.
I agree, but that’s asking for informed customers which is kind of a joke.
Devils advocate, even us tech people don’t 100% understand the scope and reach of Facebook, what they are doing is unprecedented. It’s not like there could be really informed typical users.
Devils advocate, even us tech people don’t 100% understand the scope and reach of Facebook, what they are doing is unprecedented. It’s not like there could be really informed typical users.
Big companies are the biggest fans of regulation. It raises the bar for entry and keeps those scrappy, pesky startups away.
Regulations dont have to be so heavy that you require consultants or a legal department. Regulation that protect the broad population from being exploited is neccessary everywhere. Just look at the crypto market compared to the more mature financial market. Issues with corporations manipulating the law makers is a separate problem.
FTA...
Thanks to social media, the internet had apparently
decentralised power. In the old days, information was
passed down from the mountain top – by a government, say,
or a news organisation – to the crowd below. Now the crowd
could speak to each other and to the world. At least one
aspect of the techno-utopians’ early hopes seemed to have
materialised.
And it’s that hope that Cambridge Analytica has shattered.
For what we now understand is that those at the top, the
political parties or governments that could afford it, have
been engaged in a radical act of recentralising power. They
saw the way social media was working, empowering
individuals and networks of individuals, and they decided
to grab those same weapons for themselves.
> And it’s that hope that Cambridge Analytica has shattered.
Seems more accurate to say, that hope was shattered when people gave up on decentralized infrastructure like RSS and email in favor of Facebook's walled garden. Now there's an opportunity to go back (to the future!) and do it right.
Seems more accurate to say, that hope was shattered when people gave up on decentralized infrastructure like RSS and email in favor of Facebook's walled garden. Now there's an opportunity to go back (to the future!) and do it right.
I know this seems completely naive (and it probably is), but the internet was awesome before the endless summer. What's the main difference between then and now? It seems to me that we've spent a lot of time making the internet accessible to the masses and now we're complaining that the masses are controlling the shape of the internet.
It might go beyond the ethos of HN, but I honestly wonder how much we should consider arguments like, "Normal people won't be able to use it" and "You won't be able to build a business on that because only a tiny fraction of people would want to use it". I often think about PGP/GPG (and especially web of trust) that way. I know it's useful to me and I know that the people I want to use it with are more than capable. But they decline.
RSS is an even better example. Why are we not building RSS tools? Why are we not building a brand around blog posts, FAQs, etc that contain RSS? Why is it not the "secret password" that opens the gate to the "good content that's not being gamed for the masses"?
It might go beyond the ethos of HN, but I honestly wonder how much we should consider arguments like, "Normal people won't be able to use it" and "You won't be able to build a business on that because only a tiny fraction of people would want to use it". I often think about PGP/GPG (and especially web of trust) that way. I know it's useful to me and I know that the people I want to use it with are more than capable. But they decline.
RSS is an even better example. Why are we not building RSS tools? Why are we not building a brand around blog posts, FAQs, etc that contain RSS? Why is it not the "secret password" that opens the gate to the "good content that's not being gamed for the masses"?
> endless summer
Do you mean the eternal September [0]? Going back to the Internet being only for governments and universities is a bad idea, a bad thing to want.
I think the complaint at the moment is not the that masses are controlling the shape of the Internet but that a few corporations are both directly shaping it and, intentionally or not, shaping the masses.
RSS could maybe make a comeback. Podcasts are RSS and are more popular than ever. Subscribing to YouTube channels, following people on Twitter, these are actions people understand and do, it could be extended, "hey, why not use this thing that lets you subscribe and follow your favorite stuff not on individual web sites but everywhere?" The problem is, it makes it harder to make money off those eyeballs than to keep them in your walled garden.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Do you mean the eternal September [0]? Going back to the Internet being only for governments and universities is a bad idea, a bad thing to want.
I think the complaint at the moment is not the that masses are controlling the shape of the Internet but that a few corporations are both directly shaping it and, intentionally or not, shaping the masses.
RSS could maybe make a comeback. Podcasts are RSS and are more popular than ever. Subscribing to YouTube channels, following people on Twitter, these are actions people understand and do, it could be extended, "hey, why not use this thing that lets you subscribe and follow your favorite stuff not on individual web sites but everywhere?" The problem is, it makes it harder to make money off those eyeballs than to keep them in your walled garden.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
There's a tendency for too much money to ruin things. I agree that excluding all non-government and non-university participants from the Internet would be a bad thing. But there were some wonderful qualities to the Internet in the days before mass commercialization, and it's not a bad thing to want those qualities back.
Yes I do. I'm old enough to remember it and also old enough to forget what it's called :-)
I would love to see some tools for decentralized mass moderation of RSS feeds.
Yeah, the Web was so much better before Google made search and email radically better. Just loved that Excite search and Hotmail in 2001 where I could store dozens of photos in my couple of megabytes.
It was better before Wikipedia (a legitimate giant) existed and Google sent them vast traffic to help them build out their service.
It was better before Yahoo gave me access to free, rapidly updated stock quotes.
It was better before Netflix carved up the old TV content monopolies. Those awesome days when old media held me entirely hostage.
It was better when classified ads were spread across the entire country in localized newspapers and you couldn't easily access them in a centralized giant service like Craigslist.
It was better when real estate pricing and information was a black book.
It was better before Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Amazon, YouTube gave me easy, low cost access to all the music I could ever possibly consume.
It was better before Amazon made shopping online easy, with a vast selection, relatively inexpensive for shipping, and very consumer friendly customer service.
It was better before I could easily and inexpensively send money to other people using PayPal or Venmo or 37 other solutions.
It was better before I could take ten minutes, plug in a few things, and accept payments via Stripe or Square.
It was better when I had to use a janky static Mapquest, or spend money on cumbersome physical maps just so I could navigate a new city. Back in those amazing days when hunting for stores or locations was so much fun.
It was better when I had to go through hell to operate my own hosted infrastructure. This whole insta-infrastructure AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, DigitalOcean, Linode, stuff must stop. And who the hell wants a free CDN, down with Cloudflare!
Those old glorious days.
It was better before Wikipedia (a legitimate giant) existed and Google sent them vast traffic to help them build out their service.
It was better before Yahoo gave me access to free, rapidly updated stock quotes.
It was better before Netflix carved up the old TV content monopolies. Those awesome days when old media held me entirely hostage.
It was better when classified ads were spread across the entire country in localized newspapers and you couldn't easily access them in a centralized giant service like Craigslist.
It was better when real estate pricing and information was a black book.
It was better before Spotify, Pandora, Apple, Amazon, YouTube gave me easy, low cost access to all the music I could ever possibly consume.
It was better before Amazon made shopping online easy, with a vast selection, relatively inexpensive for shipping, and very consumer friendly customer service.
It was better before I could easily and inexpensively send money to other people using PayPal or Venmo or 37 other solutions.
It was better before I could take ten minutes, plug in a few things, and accept payments via Stripe or Square.
It was better when I had to use a janky static Mapquest, or spend money on cumbersome physical maps just so I could navigate a new city. Back in those amazing days when hunting for stores or locations was so much fun.
It was better when I had to go through hell to operate my own hosted infrastructure. This whole insta-infrastructure AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, DigitalOcean, Linode, stuff must stop. And who the hell wants a free CDN, down with Cloudflare!
Those old glorious days.
We had Geocities!
We had IRC/ICQ/AIM/MSN Messenger!
We had Newsgroups & Mailinglists!
We had millions of PHPbb Forums for any thinkable niche, running on 50$/Month Shared Hosting!
We had Websites lovingly created with Frontpage!
We had Gameserver Browsers that ran as Desktop Software, without Ad placements!
We had "underground filesharing" websites that took 700MB Games and split them in 300 parts and uploaded them to 20 different "free hosting" providers so you could be as much of a pirate as you wanted!
We had Toplists of Websites (and Toplists) where communities and content providers fought over the highest rank which more often than not were completely arbitrarily awarded!
We had Online Shopping where we could send a wire transfer before the items were sent!
We had a world where the general public didn't want or need the Internet!
We had IRC/ICQ/AIM/MSN Messenger!
We had Newsgroups & Mailinglists!
We had millions of PHPbb Forums for any thinkable niche, running on 50$/Month Shared Hosting!
We had Websites lovingly created with Frontpage!
We had Gameserver Browsers that ran as Desktop Software, without Ad placements!
We had "underground filesharing" websites that took 700MB Games and split them in 300 parts and uploaded them to 20 different "free hosting" providers so you could be as much of a pirate as you wanted!
We had Toplists of Websites (and Toplists) where communities and content providers fought over the highest rank which more often than not were completely arbitrarily awarded!
We had Online Shopping where we could send a wire transfer before the items were sent!
We had a world where the general public didn't want or need the Internet!
I largely agree with you but I think there needs to be some balance here. The fact remains that twitter, facebook, and google make many subtle decisions to store up content in silos and to get people to click on their ads.
IMO, the internet was in many ways better around 2006-2010. I liked the web better when there was google reader, a google blogsearch, and google forum/discussion search and not everything was completely centered on twitter and facebook.
IMO, the internet was in many ways better around 2006-2010. I liked the web better when there was google reader, a google blogsearch, and google forum/discussion search and not everything was completely centered on twitter and facebook.
This comment is pretty wide of the mark. The article points out that consumers made a mistake in trusting Facebook and rejecting a decentralized Internet. It's valid to make that criticism without inferring that all software of the past 15 years has been a mistake.
The comment seems to reply to the headline.
Is it surprising that when authors use clickbait, people ignore the substance and reply to the most egregious part? Especially if an awful title gives no desire to read the content.
Is it surprising that when authors use clickbait, people ignore the substance and reply to the most egregious part? Especially if an awful title gives no desire to read the content.
Your laborious sarcasm completely misses the point of the article. Nobody is wishing for "old technology" or yesterday's methods. That is not the subject.
I don't find the guardian article very interesting, it has it's own problems with a click-baity title. But your response simply loops over an irrelevant shopping list of "my favourite things about the internet".
I don't find the guardian article very interesting, it has it's own problems with a click-baity title. But your response simply loops over an irrelevant shopping list of "my favourite things about the internet".
If you're in the business of collecting HN upvotes, you had best subscribe to the hive-mind.
The very existence of this article and its prominence on a news aggregator site refutes it.
The very existence of this article and its prominence on a news aggregator site refutes it.
Yeah, all hail to the removal of every tiny bit of friction on your way. Nice shortlist of crap that consumers have elevated into holy gospel.
Yes, I just called Google crap. And Apple, and Amazon, and Clouflare, and Netflix, and Spotify. Yahoo!, Hotmail, do I need to mention Facebook? Centralised, monopolising, giant corporate crap. I avoid them whenever I can.
The web most definitely was better before they got their grasping claws on every aspect of it.
Yes, I just called Google crap. And Apple, and Amazon, and Clouflare, and Netflix, and Spotify. Yahoo!, Hotmail, do I need to mention Facebook? Centralised, monopolising, giant corporate crap. I avoid them whenever I can.
The web most definitely was better before they got their grasping claws on every aspect of it.
What a bunch of populist clap trap. The people owned the web, but tech giants stole it? Please. Tech giants gave people what they wanted. Google, Facebook, Amazon: they gave people what they wanted and are compensated richly for that.
A better headline might be, the thing everyone thought they wanted is now an obviously terrible idea.
>the thing everyone thought they wanted
I’m a really firm believer in this. The Henry Ford quote is the most succinct way to describe it I’ve ever seen, but the topic of “miswanting” is dear to me.
I’m a really firm believer in this. The Henry Ford quote is the most succinct way to describe it I’ve ever seen, but the topic of “miswanting” is dear to me.
They disproportionately capture people's network effect value and sell it back to them.
Couldn't agree more. Not to mention the fact that you're still perfectly able to do all the things that you've always been able to do. Anyone can still put up a website whenever they want. Now they just feel entitled to all the views and ad revenue that the big platforms will drive to them.
You know how in the 1980s everything was corporate suits and shiny expensive PDAs and that was fashionable, and then in the 1990s grunge happened?
Well, maybe the 2020s will look like Neocities.
Well, maybe the 2020s will look like Neocities.
seems like we are in the age of bearded grunge kids wearing flannel holding expensive "PDA" equivalents
The problem is that a lot of people are relying too much on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc and not contributing to the web in other more direct ways.
I missed the bit about how we take it back... ?
With standards and open source.
Email is great because there is no vendor lock in. Open source is great because large groups of people can decide to fork it (or even inividuals).
The blockchain tech now opened a lot of applications that could rival these current tech giants.
Just 1 example: OpenBazaar received 3 million dollar investment. I'm curious what these kind of web 3.0 techs will change.
Email is great because there is no vendor lock in. Open source is great because large groups of people can decide to fork it (or even inividuals).
The blockchain tech now opened a lot of applications that could rival these current tech giants.
Just 1 example: OpenBazaar received 3 million dollar investment. I'm curious what these kind of web 3.0 techs will change.
Nothing. They will change nothing.
The illusion that "no-one is in control" of blockchain applications is going to meet the brick wall of regulatory reality pretty hard.
The illusion that "no-one is in control" of blockchain applications is going to meet the brick wall of regulatory reality pretty hard.
You mean the same like the regulatory of copyrighted material on BitTorrent? Can't wait. BitTorrent is indeed another nice example of what I meant.
In which case, yes, you're absolutely right. Open-source protocols could possibly change the situation.
But that's got exactly zero in common with funded organisations making applications using the blockchain.
You can't monetise what you don't control.
But that's got exactly zero in common with funded organisations making applications using the blockchain.
You can't monetise what you don't control.
The example that I gave (OpenBazaar) is not an organization making application using the blockchain. That's like saying Bitcoin is such an organization.
Yes, they got 3 mil for developing their open source platform further, which in my opinion, is mind blowing. Especially since they don't have any clear plans on how to make revenue out of this.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBazaar
Yes, they got 3 mil for developing their open source platform further, which in my opinion, is mind blowing. Especially since they don't have any clear plans on how to make revenue out of this.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenBazaar
The people own the web, in the same way we, the people, own the real world.
all cambridge analytica and every retargetting ad firm does is to try and trick that power into mistakenly choosing against the powers own interest - but that has always been true, and the old solutions, of free press, free association and education are still the solutions.
where those rights are enshrined in the real world we will triumph, where they are not we will have to fight a bit harder.
I recognise the value of articles like this in highlighting the problem, but it's not hopeless, it's actually the opposite - the web is awesome, and now we get to keep the awesome, and clean up the problems ready for next time.
all cambridge analytica and every retargetting ad firm does is to try and trick that power into mistakenly choosing against the powers own interest - but that has always been true, and the old solutions, of free press, free association and education are still the solutions.
where those rights are enshrined in the real world we will triumph, where they are not we will have to fight a bit harder.
I recognise the value of articles like this in highlighting the problem, but it's not hopeless, it's actually the opposite - the web is awesome, and now we get to keep the awesome, and clean up the problems ready for next time.
As with media today, they don't get the problem right and have terrible solutions ready.
The real way forward is decentralization. We need to remove the authoritarian's 30-50% cut from everything.
The real way forward is decentralization. We need to remove the authoritarian's 30-50% cut from everything.
Yeah, I missed the "how we take it back" part. This is a pretty poor article that is largely the author's political complaint and rant being twisted into the slightly relevant click bait title that is trending right now.
If you actually want to take the internet back, join SSB or build a decentralized web like with https://hackernoon.com/so-you-want-to-build-a-p2p-twitter-wi... .
If you actually want to take the internet back, join SSB or build a decentralized web like with https://hackernoon.com/so-you-want-to-build-a-p2p-twitter-wi... .
The author's suggestions are fairly ridiculous. It's as if he can't fathom the idea people could use something other than Facebook. Quote:
It could be regulation; it could be anti-trust legislation to break up those tech giants that act as virtual monopolies. I like Derakhshan’s idea of obliging Facebook and others to open up a marketplace of algorithms: if you don’t like the current social media preference for popularity (retweets) and novelty (“latest”), you should be free to choose a different algorithm that acts on different values.
It could be regulation; it could be anti-trust legislation to break up those tech giants that act as virtual monopolies. I like Derakhshan’s idea of obliging Facebook and others to open up a marketplace of algorithms: if you don’t like the current social media preference for popularity (retweets) and novelty (“latest”), you should be free to choose a different algorithm that acts on different values.
Nobody "stole" the web as such, what they did was lure in the sheep to the herd like what happened in "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" [1]. The web grew, both in number of users as well as in size, from Geocities (also centralised, grew annoying habits like adding advertising to users' pages) through Myspace to the current Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Snapchat/Tumblr/etc. concoction. I consider these to be growing pains, as long as there are no China-like restrictions on actual internet connections the web - or what follows after it - will find a way to grow past this stage.
The real problems will start when the censorship and leaching of data is moved to the entry points for the 'net, i.e. the internet access providers. The only way around such an obstacle would be some form of "darknet", either a "virtual" infrastructure on top of the physical one offered by the 'net or something which bypasses it altogether. We're not there yet but it doesn't take that much thought to realise that once some form of self-hosting takes off - with more and more fibre-connected users this becomes a viable proposition - those who call for censorship will not be satisfied much longer when they see the efficacy of their filters dwindle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin
The real problems will start when the censorship and leaching of data is moved to the entry points for the 'net, i.e. the internet access providers. The only way around such an obstacle would be some form of "darknet", either a "virtual" infrastructure on top of the physical one offered by the 'net or something which bypasses it altogether. We're not there yet but it doesn't take that much thought to realise that once some form of self-hosting takes off - with more and more fibre-connected users this becomes a viable proposition - those who call for censorship will not be satisfied much longer when they see the efficacy of their filters dwindle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin
He could have recommended Privacy Badger [1] so that his readers can block all of the data that The Guardian sends to Facebook and Google about which articles they are reading.
1. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
1. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger
We've known for years that tech companies have made their money off collecting data, profiling users and selling access to the users and their profiles. The general public never cared before. They signed in with Facebook around the web, knowingly gave the app permissions to read their personal data, and agreed to give third party apps access to that information.
People are not stupid. They traded privacy for convenience. Why act dumbfounded now? Why blame Facebook instead of ourselves?