How to permanently delete your Facebook account(facebook.com)
facebook.com
How to permanently delete your Facebook account
https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674
288 comments
The problem is that fundamentally, to Facebook, a user's login account is a separate thing from the user's profile.
You can delete your account, and with a straight face Facebook can assert you've deleted it. But your profile, the mass of data and content that you put on Facebook with your account, and all the data associated with it through their social graph and algorithms, that never gets deleted.
In a very real sense, "you" still exist in Facebook. That's why when, weeks, months, or years later, when you login, Facebook recognizes you. You create a new "account", and Facebook very conveniently associates everything it knows about you (which it never forgot) with your new account.
In a very real sense, "you" still exist in Facebook. That's why when, weeks, months, or years later, when you login, Facebook recognizes you. You create a new "account", and Facebook very conveniently associates everything it knows about you (which it never forgot) with your new account.
I tested this quite recently actually. I typed my Facebook password to login with all sorts of mistakes, although the core part of it remains the same, with some minor changes (all caps, a capital letter, an extra character, etc). In all cases the passwords were accepted.
Which leads me to think that Facebook passwords might just be stored as searchable text rather than hashes. Granted I'm no cryptography expert though.
Which leads me to think that Facebook passwords might just be stored as searchable text rather than hashes. Granted I'm no cryptography expert though.
This was talked about in another HN thread a few years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13426544
It's not stored in searchable text rather they simply have some heuristics that they modify the password submitted and retry automatically.
It's not stored in searchable text rather they simply have some heuristics that they modify the password submitted and retry automatically.
Thanks. That's a very interesting approach by them.
Yikes.
This is a bit hyperbolic, and a little unbelievable. Is it possible that you experienced a bug in Facebook? Or that someone else had access to your account, which prevented the deletion? You've essentially asserted that you've caught Facebook lying about the account deletion process, while not showing us any proof outside of your comment.
Not located in US/UK/Europe, however my deleted account is fully deleted. Can't even 'reset' the password on it since there's no email found when I try to use the reset.
I don't like Facebook, but I don't think there's a point in getting riled up by one person's comment on HackerNews. It reminds me of the thread where someone was claiming they were under surveillance for using ProtonMail.
Not located in US/UK/Europe, however my deleted account is fully deleted. Can't even 'reset' the password on it since there's no email found when I try to use the reset.
I don't like Facebook, but I don't think there's a point in getting riled up by one person's comment on HackerNews. It reminds me of the thread where someone was claiming they were under surveillance for using ProtonMail.
Yes, it is possible that I experienced a bug at least three times (2010, 2014 and 2020), certainly.
It might be the case, sure.
Last email (as of today) about permanent deletion was one year ago. During next year I will give it another try: log in and come back to you, then.
It might be the case, sure.
Last email (as of today) about permanent deletion was one year ago. During next year I will give it another try: log in and come back to you, then.
No need to get hostile. You've made an unsubstantiated claim, I'm asking for some proof of which there's still none. Remember, I tried the exact same test with the login as you, and couldn't reproduce.
Like I said, there's a number of reasonable reasons why your account didn't get deleted, all of them pass the Occam's Razor test a little better than "Facebook just didn't delete my account/is not deleting accounts in secret".
You're making a statement which, if true, is huge -- that Facebook is secretly retaining accounts after deletion, despite multiple credible sources (IE: TIME) running detailed articles to the contrary. On top of that your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by my anecdotal evidence. So I hope you understand if I don't take this at face-value.
Like I said, there's a number of reasonable reasons why your account didn't get deleted, all of them pass the Occam's Razor test a little better than "Facebook just didn't delete my account/is not deleting accounts in secret".
You're making a statement which, if true, is huge -- that Facebook is secretly retaining accounts after deletion, despite multiple credible sources (IE: TIME) running detailed articles to the contrary. On top of that your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by my anecdotal evidence. So I hope you understand if I don't take this at face-value.
I do wonder if manually deleting everything: every post, every photo, every comment, every interaction, will actually delete things behind the scenes, or if FB keeps everything regardless.
Maybe a better idea would be to actively go against the Terms of Service for FB and obfuscate the data in your account
- Remove all photos and replace them with other images (nothing illegal)
- Change all data relating to your person
- Create several posts with unrelated data
- Like as many pages as you possibly can
- Remove all photos and replace them with other images (nothing illegal)
- Change all data relating to your person
- Create several posts with unrelated data
- Like as many pages as you possibly can
Exactly. Deleting is giving up control over your account.
> Imagine, you're living outside of USA/UK/Europe.
Technically, with GDPR you only need to visit the EU to delete your account... So I suppose one might a vacation out of deleting Facebook, LinkedIn etc accounts?
Technically, with GDPR you only need to visit the EU to delete your account... So I suppose one might a vacation out of deleting Facebook, LinkedIn etc accounts?
probably you were in a hurry or distressed and didn't read the text while deleting the account and probably, you have disabled your account. They will offer an option to disable account in case you change your mind later. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Disagree.
- I explicitly check to avoid any "disabling".
- The only intent was to permanently delete the account.
- You can believe me or not and I did it really careful.
- I explicitly check to avoid any "disabling".
- The only intent was to permanently delete the account.
- You can believe me or not and I did it really careful.
Move to a European country and Sue there for GDPR violation.
Yes that sounds entirely reasonable and practical.
Hello from Amsterdam!
I'm confused. Are you expecting me to spend hundreds of thousands of Euros to get together a team of lawyers and spend years litigating with Facebook?
It's not even clear if I have standing. And what damages would I get? $3.50?
I'm confused. Are you expecting me to spend hundreds of thousands of Euros to get together a team of lawyers and spend years litigating with Facebook?
It's not even clear if I have standing. And what damages would I get? $3.50?
You don't need to live in the EU/EEA to invoke GDPR rights. Case in point: the UK authority upheld a US resident's GDPR claim against Cambridge Analytica (and yes, Facebook was involved). https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-bl...
What do you mean “upheld”? The story in your link describes the company refusing to comply and then ends. It’s true that you don’t have to be currently living in the EU to invoke your GDPR rights if you’re an EU citizen traveling abroad, or if you’re a foreign citizen traveling or residing in the EU. GDPR applies to companies that market to people in the EU or do business in the EU. BUT - GDPR is an EU law, it does not apply to US citizens living in the US, which is why the company in your story was legally entitled to refuse to comply.
You're quite wrong. GDPR can apply to citizens in the US, and the link I posted shows the ICO enforcing it in their favour. SCL Elections Ltd was taken to court and then fined £15,000 for not complying with that US resident's request.https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-bl...
I expect that US resident could also have brought a civil lawsuit, at least in UK courts, for damages.
The EU and UK GDPRs can also apply to companies in the US, or elsewhere. That's because location of the business (including subsidiaries) OR location of the individuals, are hooks under the GDPR's territoriality tests in Article 3. You usually need one or the other though; the way GDPR Article 3 works, it's pretty hard to imagine it applying to a US-only business in respect of US resident-individuals.
The EU and UK GDPRs can also apply to companies in the US, or elsewhere. That's because location of the business (including subsidiaries) OR location of the individuals, are hooks under the GDPR's territoriality tests in Article 3. You usually need one or the other though; the way GDPR Article 3 works, it's pretty hard to imagine it applying to a US-only business in respect of US resident-individuals.
Yes it can apply to US citizens in certain cases, I thought I agreed with you on that, did I not? It’s still a fact that GDPR does not always (or even normally) apply to US residents doing business with US companies. UK courts have no authority over US companies operating only in the US with US residents who aren’t traveling abroad. Cambridge Analytica is a British company, that is why GDPR applies to them. So yes, I was wrong to conclude prematurely based on your link that this example is one where the company was legally entitled to refuse to comply. But the take-home message doesn’t change - GDPR doesn’t automatically apply to non-EU residents or non-EU companies, unless or until one or both parties has some EU involvement.
The part I most disagreed with is "GDPR is an EU law, it does not apply to US citizens living in the US". Yes it does, I provided an example. Your follow up is a lot closer to the mark.
GDPR is an EU law. It doesn’t automatically apply to people in the US. That’s the only reason I replied - your original framing left an implied suggestion that it might commonly or by default apply to US citizens, without discussing under what conditions. Arguing that you don’t have to be an EU resident leaves the misleading impression that the EU doesn’t have to be involved. I think it’s important to note that the EU part is required somewhere in the company-customer relationship for GDPR to have any say in the matter, and it’s important specifically because this is a common misconception and the misconception is being abused in some cases to coerce compliance where it’s not legally required. I know this as a US business owner that gets emails from US companies on behalf of US citizens that are demanding certain actions and rights under GDPR, without a legal basis to do so.
Pre- or post-Brexit?
Why would that matter?
Here are the changes: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Afaik it's entirely administrative, e.g.:
> ~~an adequacy decision by the Commission~~ relevant adequacy regulations under section 17A of the 2018 Act
('the Commission' being the European Commission, and no longer relevant.)
Here are the changes: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Afaik it's entirely administrative, e.g.:
> ~~an adequacy decision by the Commission~~ relevant adequacy regulations under section 17A of the 2018 Act
('the Commission' being the European Commission, and no longer relevant.)
> Why would that matter?
Because since Brexit, the UK is no longer protected by the GDPR.
Because since Brexit, the UK is no longer protected by the GDPR.
That is perhaps pedantically true in a way you almost certainly don't mean, that there is no longer 'the GDPR', there is now the EU's GDPR and the UK's GDPR (both using that name) ... but basically false.
As I said above, it was kept with the necessary amendments. That documents title: GDPR - Keeling Schedule. Introductory paragraph:
> This schedule has been prepared by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It is intended for illustrative purposes only to assist the reader in understanding the changes to be made to the retained General Data Protection Regulation by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc)(EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (as amended by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc)(EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (subject to Parliamentary approval) when these come into force.
As I said above, it was kept with the necessary amendments. That documents title: GDPR - Keeling Schedule. Introductory paragraph:
> This schedule has been prepared by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It is intended for illustrative purposes only to assist the reader in understanding the changes to be made to the retained General Data Protection Regulation by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc)(EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (as amended by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc)(EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (subject to Parliamentary approval) when these come into force.
Couldnt you transfer your account temporary?
I'm pretty sure you can't "sue" under the GDPR. The best you can do is report them to your country's privacy regulator but so far all of them are absolutely incompetent or unwilling to enforce the regulation.
"disabling" until later is the opposite of immediate deletion. Please stop spreading disinformation.
Even your computer has delete and cancel button. Isn't the cancel button opposite of immediate deletion when I am explicitly trying to delete file. Hope you can understand and don't mock others.
[deleted]
//Imagine, you're living outside of USA/UK/Europe.
Are you saying that Facebook doesn’t enable full account delete outside of countries that require it by law?
Are you saying that Facebook doesn’t enable full account delete outside of countries that require it by law?
There's no reason to believe it's a "full" account delete even in the countries covered by the GDPR considering they brazenly breach the GDPR with their "consent" flow.
From data modelling point of view it's a challenge to wipe the user data since it will affect a social graph. And there're different strategies to handle corner cases (e.g. how to deal with reactions/replies on "deleted" comments or with reactions on your photos or your reactions on different news, mark as deleted and wipe the content or completely remove nested graph). And it actually makes user tracking much harder (please keep in mind, they're tracking users that have not register yet, in that case user profile might be converted from one user type to another if they are going to continue track you (why didn't want that?)).
It might be much easier to extend account entity with something like:
- is_deleted (boolean)
- deleted_time (utctime)
- is_suing_us (boolean)
- legal_case_id ...
It might be much easier to extend account entity with something like:
- is_deleted (boolean)
- deleted_time (utctime)
- is_suing_us (boolean)
- legal_case_id ...
This all seems to be problems for them surveillance capitalist, and not the user.
exactly...I regularly see arguments about how technical compliance with laws or user wishes as 'its hard' as if 'hard' is a counter argument to compliance...
Is facebook here different than other apps? If you publically post something on internet, good luck trying to delete it...
Facebook collects way more data than what you choose to publish. Not to mention, if you want to delete something, Facebook should delete it. Whether other third-parties archive it is beyond scope.
>There's no reason to believe it's a "full" account delete even in the countries covered by the GDPR considering they brazenly breach the GDPR with their "consent" flow.
Given FB's business model, and the fact that they create "shadow" profiles for folks who don't even have FB accounts, I have no doubt that while their UI might pretend that your account has been "deleted", all the data still exists for their use.
Which is why, when I left Facebook in 2014, rather than attempting to delete or disable the account, I posted a goodbye to those on FB that I cared about and explained exactly why I was leaving (their predatory and invasive business model).
I then logged out and haven't returned. I did this because I figured that any activity on their platform would be logged and stored with everything else they'd already collected.
And that was seven years ago. Given what we've seen from them since then, it's pretty clear that I was right.
Just go away and don't look back. Otherwise you'll just give them more data.
Given FB's business model, and the fact that they create "shadow" profiles for folks who don't even have FB accounts, I have no doubt that while their UI might pretend that your account has been "deleted", all the data still exists for their use.
Which is why, when I left Facebook in 2014, rather than attempting to delete or disable the account, I posted a goodbye to those on FB that I cared about and explained exactly why I was leaving (their predatory and invasive business model).
I then logged out and haven't returned. I did this because I figured that any activity on their platform would be logged and stored with everything else they'd already collected.
And that was seven years ago. Given what we've seen from them since then, it's pretty clear that I was right.
Just go away and don't look back. Otherwise you'll just give them more data.
> I have no doubt that while their UI might pretend that your account has been "deleted", all the data still exists for their use.
They don't even have to pretend to delete your account, they can actually delete it. But through some linguistic slight-of-hand (i.e., lying) they obscure the fact that your account is not all the data they have on you. Your "account", in a strict sense might just be your username and password. It happens to also be associated with the entire pile of data that is a profile. Once a user no longer has an account, it's what you call a "shadow profile".
They don't even have to pretend to delete your account, they can actually delete it. But through some linguistic slight-of-hand (i.e., lying) they obscure the fact that your account is not all the data they have on you. Your "account", in a strict sense might just be your username and password. It happens to also be associated with the entire pile of data that is a profile. Once a user no longer has an account, it's what you call a "shadow profile".
>They don't even have to pretend to delete your account, they can actually delete it. But through some linguistic slight-of-hand (i.e., lying) they obscure the fact that your account is not all the data they have on you. Your "account", in a strict sense might just be your username and password. It happens to also be associated with the entire pile of data that is a profile. Once a user no longer has an account, it's what you call a "shadow profile".
A likely scenario. Although I'd say that removing a userid and password from their auth db doesn't qualify as "deleting" an account. Rather, that's disabling an account. And IIUC (I'm not in the EU and not familiar with all the details) the GDPR/EU privacy folks would likely agree with that assessment too.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the GDPR could weigh in on what sorts of fines could be levied against Facebook for pulling a stunt like that on European citizens?
Edit: Levied is a more accurate term than "leveled".
A likely scenario. Although I'd say that removing a userid and password from their auth db doesn't qualify as "deleting" an account. Rather, that's disabling an account. And IIUC (I'm not in the EU and not familiar with all the details) the GDPR/EU privacy folks would likely agree with that assessment too.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the GDPR could weigh in on what sorts of fines could be levied against Facebook for pulling a stunt like that on European citizens?
Edit: Levied is a more accurate term than "leveled".
So why are there no consequences? Why isn't there a red corner Interpol arrest warrant for Zuck out?
Because the US government wants to maintain access to FBs data. Shutting down FB would be a big blow to surveillance, hence they will never do anything serious against it. They’ll just put on a show, scream publicly in outrage about what FB does or whatever, and then nothing substantial will come out of it, because they never intended to do anything in the first place.
The regulators who are supposed to enforce the GDPR are either incompetent or unwilling to do so. I suspect there might be political problems with stepping up enforcement considering a lot of politicians rely on social media & ads (which is powered by non-consensual data processing) to help with their (re)-election.
I don't know
- whether they partially disable functions on purpose
- or there are region-dependant backend code errors.
- whether they partially disable functions on purpose
- or there are region-dependant backend code errors.
Would you be surprised?
They flout the GDPR, so why wouldn't they flout this?
Looks like I'll be on Facebook forever.
There is, you basically spend a year rewriting your profile step by step with garbage data. Then delete the garbage posts and replace them with other stuff. It's long and it takes effort.
I assume that when you do it all at once they will just disable you and keep the old snapshot in their facebook graph.
I assume that when you do it all at once they will just disable you and keep the old snapshot in their facebook graph.
I tried to download my Facebook data once and found that it had all my ancient and deleted posts, ancient relationship status, ancient cities of dwelling, etc.
Anyway how would filling in garbage help in deleting Facebook account?
Anyway how would filling in garbage help in deleting Facebook account?
I think the idea is to seed mistrust in the data because there is no way to distinguish between the genuine and the fake data you put on your account. So the fake data makes the genuine practically useless.
Exactly. Taking it to the next level, leave your own tracking info in the fakery, e.g. "favorite vacation: France". Then if someone cold-spams you with tickets to Paris, you'll know why.
They lie about everything else, why would this be different?
How this exageration contributes to a discussion here?
It is very popular now to bash facebook. This kind of herd conformism and unsubstantiated claims are harming hacker news community in my humble opinion.
If you do not bring new evidence or ideas, please refrain from exaggerated accusations.
If you do not bring new evidence or ideas, please refrain from exaggerated accusations.
Ah please. It can easily be found in the record that almost every statement made by Facebook is a lie or not truthful. Just one influential for me is the promise not to do anything with WhatsApp and Facebook. Incredibly naive at the time to approve that acquisition on the pinky swear they’d hold their word. At this stage I’m astounded by any official taking the word of Facebook. Their incentives to spin are insurmountable.
All discussions about Facebook must include a reminder that they lie about everything. Pretending that they are trustworthy or reliable is disingenuous. Truths about Facebook’s lying can’t be repeated enough.
I live in Ireland. A while after GDPR came into effect, I went about deleted a Microsoft account I didn't use anymore. Deleted it on the site, contacted support to request all data be wiped. Done. About 3 years later I get an email that it was accessed and they disabled it for illegal activity. Deleted it in the site, contacted support to request all data be wiped. Honestly think it's more worthwhile to just change the account info to garbage and leave it
You cannot be quite sure
- that someone who takes over your "garbage" account
- could fake someone else (on your behalf)
- with a traces on corporate servers that will lead authorities to you in the future.
It might be highly unlikely to happen, though.
- that someone who takes over your "garbage" account
- could fake someone else (on your behalf)
- with a traces on corporate servers that will lead authorities to you in the future.
It might be highly unlikely to happen, though.
One way to leave is to garbage the account, then put a max size password on it, generated randomly. Then forget about the whole thing. Maybe that is safe enough?
Until they actually delete the data, there's a way for someone other than you to get to it. It could require a terrible password reset feature or a breach, but the data is still there.
I now actively avoid signing up for services unless I really really need to, just to avoid this mess. These shady deletion practices effectively kill new signups — in my case, at least.
I live in the UK, I tried to delete my PayPal account (that I never wanted to create, it came out of what I thought was a 'guest checkout' flow) and was repeatedly told I needed to provide PII that they didn't currently have in order to 'verify' my identity so they could delete it.
Nobody seems to remember the time back when FaceBook forced everyone on the platform to use their real name... It was exactly the point their plan to gather data matured I believe.
This is also why many sites and apps offer verification programs as well in my understanding... Verifying a user's ID has been a practices for ages now, but it did nothing to stop the growth of disinformation because that's not what verification was for IMO.
An unregulated private company asking you for official government documentation and your real name is definitely tracking you in my opinion. Even friends commenting with your name and family associations/connections on your account can easily ID everyone.
They are not a government agency with the authority to ask people for government ID, but somehow they convinced everyone to use their real name, and it didn't stop the decay of conduct decorum on the platform, it only served to track information more accurately.
Even people who have never registered for FB are indexed by them based on tagged photos and in posts that others have made about them using their names.
They also track people based on interactions across other apps entirely not associated with FB... That's IMO why certain sites slowed and faulted mysteriously when their domain went offline.
I am willing to bet that they have a really interesting splunk (or similar tech) dashboard they can look at and search any time they want full of analytics based on almost every human on earth.
Account privacy settings have always been a very ambiguous "shell game" with FB and other social apps, and often do not work properly, what makes anyone think a "delete account" request would ever be honored by such a company that manipulates it's user base?
I also suspect that each of the major social platforms do the same type of info gathering to varying extents as well.
This is some serious "James Bond island cave villain" stuff, and whatever congressional action comes next (if anything does) may tell us where the future is going for our privacy and personal info rights... :|
This is also why many sites and apps offer verification programs as well in my understanding... Verifying a user's ID has been a practices for ages now, but it did nothing to stop the growth of disinformation because that's not what verification was for IMO.
An unregulated private company asking you for official government documentation and your real name is definitely tracking you in my opinion. Even friends commenting with your name and family associations/connections on your account can easily ID everyone.
They are not a government agency with the authority to ask people for government ID, but somehow they convinced everyone to use their real name, and it didn't stop the decay of conduct decorum on the platform, it only served to track information more accurately.
Even people who have never registered for FB are indexed by them based on tagged photos and in posts that others have made about them using their names.
They also track people based on interactions across other apps entirely not associated with FB... That's IMO why certain sites slowed and faulted mysteriously when their domain went offline.
I am willing to bet that they have a really interesting splunk (or similar tech) dashboard they can look at and search any time they want full of analytics based on almost every human on earth.
Account privacy settings have always been a very ambiguous "shell game" with FB and other social apps, and often do not work properly, what makes anyone think a "delete account" request would ever be honored by such a company that manipulates it's user base?
I also suspect that each of the major social platforms do the same type of info gathering to varying extents as well.
This is some serious "James Bond island cave villain" stuff, and whatever congressional action comes next (if anything does) may tell us where the future is going for our privacy and personal info rights... :|
> An unregulated private company asking you for official government documentation and your real name is definitely tracking you in my opinion.
This is nothing unusual? It’s extremely common for a private company to request identify verification
This is nothing unusual? It’s extremely common for a private company to request identify verification
There is no legitimate reason for Facebook, or any other social media website, to require a copy of your ID other than for purposes of renting your authentic profile to advertisers.
There are plenty of good arguments for requiring people to use their actual identities on social media. You may think the downsides outweigh the advantages, but it’s absurd to say there is “no legitimate reason”
If you are a company whose business is advertisement, you should not get a free pass to *require* *unnecessary* personally identifiable information from your target audience.
There is no good argument for making it a *requirement*. If the platform has issues moderating its content, then there are solutions other than requiring their users to identify themselves. Plus, as we saw, asking for ID does not help fight against problematic content and its spread. The root of the problem may lie elsewhere, e.g. in the system which boosts user-generated content which draws clicks (clickbait) and likes (outrage and fake news). Asking for ID is only good for the targetted advertisement business, telling otherwise is a decoy.
There is no good argument for making it a *requirement*. If the platform has issues moderating its content, then there are solutions other than requiring their users to identify themselves. Plus, as we saw, asking for ID does not help fight against problematic content and its spread. The root of the problem may lie elsewhere, e.g. in the system which boosts user-generated content which draws clicks (clickbait) and likes (outrage and fake news). Asking for ID is only good for the targetted advertisement business, telling otherwise is a decoy.
I don't think am being unreasonable. There is nothing stopping you or any user from consuming the product without proof of government ID. Besides social media networks get hacked all the time.
Sure, for a dentist or doctor's visit, it's totally reasonable. But if you were asked for your ID every time you bought a burger at McDonalds, it would be considered suspect and a potential privacy invasion by most.
The same is the case with social media. They don't need your government ID, and they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.
The same is the case with social media. They don't need your government ID, and they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.
We've already agreed in the TOU for our credit cards that the debtor/merchant is entitled to access to information about you from your credit card company. It is far more intrusive than government ID, yet people freak the fuck out about ID but swipe their VISA 10,000 times per second.
This is how Scientology tracked me for almost three decades even after I changed addresses a dozen times. I bought something from them once on Visa, and they constantly got updates on my personal info.
How are you OK with VISA and not OK with ID on a social media site when the former is far worse than the latter?
We've already given up privacy.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong. I'd like to not be so cynical.
This is how Scientology tracked me for almost three decades even after I changed addresses a dozen times. I bought something from them once on Visa, and they constantly got updates on my personal info.
How are you OK with VISA and not OK with ID on a social media site when the former is far worse than the latter?
We've already given up privacy.
Please help me understand if I'm wrong. I'd like to not be so cynical.
Credit Card industries are regulated by law, the laws are weak as well though, and also rarely enforced, so card companies can really push boundaries in secretive ways with privacy invasion anyway.
In contrast to social media, where there is not any substantial regulation yet, it's the wild west with your information right now... They can sell your phone number, anything saved on your phone, everything you post, and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...
Mobile (installed) apps can collect precise location data on you once you install their app... Credit card companies can potentially track you and gather personal data as well if you install their (native) mobile app. As phones evolve, it will eventually become normal to be tracked and to not be able to opt out if regulation (laws) aren't made and enforced to protect individuals from privacy invasion.
This is why I use web sites instead of installing single-use apps, but also why certain companies want to end support for browser based sites, and why some services can only accessed via installed apps.
In contrast to social media, where there is not any substantial regulation yet, it's the wild west with your information right now... They can sell your phone number, anything saved on your phone, everything you post, and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...
Mobile (installed) apps can collect precise location data on you once you install their app... Credit card companies can potentially track you and gather personal data as well if you install their (native) mobile app. As phones evolve, it will eventually become normal to be tracked and to not be able to opt out if regulation (laws) aren't made and enforced to protect individuals from privacy invasion.
This is why I use web sites instead of installing single-use apps, but also why certain companies want to end support for browser based sites, and why some services can only accessed via installed apps.
> Credit Card industries are regulated by law,
This is a good point. Even though they are ignored, there at least is something to use in litigation.
> and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...
Like the Emoji apps that were doing this years ago.
> instead of installing single-use apps,
I keep my app use extreeeemmely limited.
We need serious regulation on social media sites that collect this much personal information, meaning stuff people post that is intended for a very limited, controlled audience, and not wall posts that are public to everyone. (Like HN.)
I think the problem is what someone pointed out to me yesterday: tying DMs to a "real" identity. Purchases are already tied to who we are, and so are every form we sign that has significance. Phone companies know whos in our address books. Email is 100% insecure, always has been. The last thing to protect is the DMs.... which is probably too late.
This is a good point. Even though they are ignored, there at least is something to use in litigation.
> and even possibly run a keylogger from their mobile app on your device...
Like the Emoji apps that were doing this years ago.
> instead of installing single-use apps,
I keep my app use extreeeemmely limited.
We need serious regulation on social media sites that collect this much personal information, meaning stuff people post that is intended for a very limited, controlled audience, and not wall posts that are public to everyone. (Like HN.)
I think the problem is what someone pointed out to me yesterday: tying DMs to a "real" identity. Purchases are already tied to who we are, and so are every form we sign that has significance. Phone companies know whos in our address books. Email is 100% insecure, always has been. The last thing to protect is the DMs.... which is probably too late.
Now they can just track the card you used to all your purchases, or maybe even facial recognition. ID's aren't needed for them to know who you are in many cases.
It's called a loyalty card what you describe
The carrot to get you to sign up for the loyalty card is the promise of discount prices. The shelf price says $X, but "Members pay just $Y". Of course $Y is closer to the true price. Sometimes they'll send out a mailer with extra coupons, usually somewhat customized based on your past purchases. But now they get to track all your activity. This is not nefarious to the extent it's used to plan inventory and purchasing, but to the extent that your store profile is sold to other companies, it becomes nefarious.
A casual reading of the terms and conditions might lead a person to object, that it says they don't sell your data. A close reading notes that it says they don't sell to "third parties". But they leave out the fact that any other company the store does business with is not a third party. They technically don't sell your data to them, they provide your data to other companies during the normal course of transacting business with them. Thus, your data flows through the system, unchecked.
A casual reading of the terms and conditions might lead a person to object, that it says they don't sell your data. A close reading notes that it says they don't sell to "third parties". But they leave out the fact that any other company the store does business with is not a third party. They technically don't sell your data to them, they provide your data to other companies during the normal course of transacting business with them. Thus, your data flows through the system, unchecked.
Yes, they make a lot more money off of using and selling the data you create than what you save... And they also lay you off as a cashier and make you check out and bag your own groceries... the future is lookin bleak... lol
> they're not authorized to demand it like the health care industry is.
There is no governing body that determines who is and who is not "authorized" to request ID in the United States.
There is no governing body that determines who is and who is not "authorized" to request ID in the United States.
Yes there is... Congress does it regularly by creating and amending laws like HIPAA.
Which law restricts a business like McDonalds from requesting an ID? It sure isn't HIPAA.
Is it? Maybe its my unconscious avoidance of industries with that practice, but the only other private corporation I can think of that has requested my ID is Costco. I can't think of a single software service or social media that has wanted my ID for anything. On the other hand, Facebook has never asked for my ID either, I assume because I have an old enough account that I was grandfathered in.
Edit: I thought of two more: airlines and banks. But I assume both of those industries are required to by regulation.
Edit: I thought of two more: airlines and banks. But I assume both of those industries are required to by regulation.
In order to be verified on Twitter and YouTube, you need to present government ID. I wasn't talking about FaceBook in that reference. FaceBook's algorithm likely verifies people over time based on requiring their actual (government record) name versus the content in their posts, possibly combined with facial recognition from posted photos and family associations.
I always chose to never use my real name on any social media accounts, if it was required I'd probably elect to not sign up, but their EULAs frequently are revised to serve whatever purpose they want because there is no meaningful regulation in place to limit their data mining practices on pretty much anyone because others post info about you in some way over time, even if you don't have an account.
I always chose to never use my real name on any social media accounts, if it was required I'd probably elect to not sign up, but their EULAs frequently are revised to serve whatever purpose they want because there is no meaningful regulation in place to limit their data mining practices on pretty much anyone because others post info about you in some way over time, even if you don't have an account.
Oh I can think of many others: cryptocurrency exchanges, many payment providers, some server providers, Twitter (during verification), freelancing platforms (like Upwork) and even Pornhub.
Sometimes it's a legal obligation (under KYC), sometimes it's pressure from credit card companies, and sometimes it's just websites making shit up to enforce their own rules.
Sometimes it's a legal obligation (under KYC), sometimes it's pressure from credit card companies, and sometimes it's just websites making shit up to enforce their own rules.
Crypto exchanges do it because of mandated government income tax reporting requirements and potential for payment fraud (also a regulated industry).
Twitter requires ID and personal information (i.e. your phone number) for verification even from users that are not involved in any sort of purchasing or income scenarios.
Reddit started out not caring about who anyone was, but over time IP based tracking and other things started to creep in...
Private companies that aren't regulated nor involved in conducting regulated business should not be asking for any government issued ID nor personal user data if you ask me.
Twitter requires ID and personal information (i.e. your phone number) for verification even from users that are not involved in any sort of purchasing or income scenarios.
Reddit started out not caring about who anyone was, but over time IP based tracking and other things started to creep in...
Private companies that aren't regulated nor involved in conducting regulated business should not be asking for any government issued ID nor personal user data if you ask me.
I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for not having it.
Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.
If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.
Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.
If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.
> If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.
Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are always _overly_ interested. IME, if you say "I don't do X for moral reasons" to someone who does X, they take it as a personal attack. It's closely related to the concept of "anticipated reproach". While they may pay lip service to it, most people aren't fundamentally able to understand the concept of moral pluralism/relativism, and won't be satisfied with "I think it's wrong but it's no black mark on you if you don't think it is".
Is this really true? I do a smattering of weird/non-conformist things for moral reasons, and people are always _overly_ interested. IME, if you say "I don't do X for moral reasons" to someone who does X, they take it as a personal attack. It's closely related to the concept of "anticipated reproach". While they may pay lip service to it, most people aren't fundamentally able to understand the concept of moral pluralism/relativism, and won't be satisfied with "I think it's wrong but it's no black mark on you if you don't think it is".
I mostly agree with your comment, having deleted WhatsApp myself this spring. However I have a problem with that.
> many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent
Did you not use the same network effect to get people to join Signal/Telegram? While I agree that Signal is morally better (being a non-profit and all), it is still a closed garden, which makes such network effects possible. And this in itself is a moral issue, I think. Personally I would like to use a system like, where everyone can choose his own server. But nobody in my social circle uses it, so I'm stuck with walled gardens...
> many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent
Did you not use the same network effect to get people to join Signal/Telegram? While I agree that Signal is morally better (being a non-profit and all), it is still a closed garden, which makes such network effects possible. And this in itself is a moral issue, I think. Personally I would like to use a system like, where everyone can choose his own server. But nobody in my social circle uses it, so I'm stuck with walled gardens...
IRC never went anywhere, you aren't stuck.
My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.
Get them onto Element, it's brilliant! [1]. Matrix is an aggressively open garden - it even bridges to other social networks [2].
[1]: https://element.io/
[2]: https://matrix.org/bridges/
[1]: https://element.io/
[2]: https://matrix.org/bridges/
I would not call Element brilliant. I have had a hard time getting others to adopt it. Fluffychat (Matrix client as well) is more user-friendly.
I don't understand how telegram is less immoral than Facebook.
Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.
Just the Russian government. Like I said...
Facebook is a monopolist, Telegram is not
Do you live outside the US? I always hear how popular WhatsApp is on here but honestly I don't know a single person who uses that app in the US. Or any chat platform for that matter. Everyone just texts and calls at least in my younger millenial circle. I guess in other countries they still charge for texts and calls like its 2002 and maybe WhatsApp is more popular there to get around paying for each text message?
I live in the US, and there are 4 or 5 people I talk to via WhatsApp as our primary communications channel. I'm also a member of 2 or 3 group chats that are used occasionally that I get value out of. I managed to move one group chat over to Signal, but the others didn't budge. I also find that WhatsApp is often the go-to for short-term ad-hoc group chats, like for a bunch of people who are on a trip or vacation together.
I find Whats App to be the easiest of the 3: Whoever has WhatsApp has a mobile phone. So, it's just a matter of sending them SMS instead of WhatsApp. The odd situation is when contacting companies via WhatsApp, but most companies usually have alternative methods of contact.
Is the problem that a lot of non-US mobile providers don't include SMS for free?
I'm probably showing my ignorance around SMS and iMessage, but why can't SMS simply use your data allowance? Doesn't iMessage do this?
I'm probably showing my ignorance around SMS and iMessage, but why can't SMS simply use your data allowance? Doesn't iMessage do this?
SMS runs through a different protocol and has different set standards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS
iMessage is a proprietary messaging system
iMessage is a proprietary messaging system
Any idea why so many providers charge for SMS?
Simply put, because they can. They may have a monopoly or near-monopoly on SMS service, so they can do what they want.
That was the state of affairs in the US until fairly recently; most carriers (in the US at least) offer a pretty standard plan that includes unlimited texting.
That was the state of affairs in the US until fairly recently; most carriers (in the US at least) offer a pretty standard plan that includes unlimited texting.
Maybe I'm just old or out of it? I've never used WhatsApp and don't see why I would need any chat apps other than just normal texting on my iPhone.
It's not that you're old - you simply are not that poor.
WhatsApp first value proposition has been to enable cheap ("free") messaging while, at least here in Argentina, SMS would still cost a lot of money. The Android SMS experience is bad, too - or at least it's not a nice one.
Add groups, multimedia, audio calls with no long-distance fee, or even video calls (I don't think the phone system offers an alternative, at least here), and all of that being "cross-manufacturer" (we have 92% Android users here, so you still don't want to leave your two iOS friends out) and it's pretty much clear why WhatsApp works best.
Signal & Telegram could have make it, too - but WhatsApp was probably first, and they offered support for some feature phones back then when they still were around.
WhatsApp first value proposition has been to enable cheap ("free") messaging while, at least here in Argentina, SMS would still cost a lot of money. The Android SMS experience is bad, too - or at least it's not a nice one.
Add groups, multimedia, audio calls with no long-distance fee, or even video calls (I don't think the phone system offers an alternative, at least here), and all of that being "cross-manufacturer" (we have 92% Android users here, so you still don't want to leave your two iOS friends out) and it's pretty much clear why WhatsApp works best.
Signal & Telegram could have make it, too - but WhatsApp was probably first, and they offered support for some feature phones back then when they still were around.
I could have written this comment word for word.
People get _offended_ when you tell them that you don't have Whatsapp. But I let them hold that hot coal themselves.
People get _offended_ when you tell them that you don't have Whatsapp. But I let them hold that hot coal themselves.
I have (and have always had) a dumb phone so obviously no Whatsapp. I don't really undertstand its appeal. Being part of tens of groups that sends you notifications constantly because someone's posted a picture of their cat but you don't leave not to offend anyone does not sound a cool thing to me.
If people need to send me some information they text me. If sending a text is too much for them maybe I did not really need to know what they wanted to send. If I want to communicate with my friends and family I call them like we used to do in the 20th century.
If people need to send me some information they text me. If sending a text is too much for them maybe I did not really need to know what they wanted to send. If I want to communicate with my friends and family I call them like we used to do in the 20th century.
This is so strange, no one in my social circle uses WhatsApp or has ever asked me to use it to talk to them. It’s all iMessage, Snapchat, and a growing group of people on Signal.
Messaging clients tend to be regional. WhatsApp is massive in Europe. From what I gather WeChat is dominant in mainland China but Hong Kong still used WhatsApp (though I think they might be coming round to Signal?) and the US, who have a higher ratio of Apple users vs the rest of the world, tend to use iMessage a lot more.
Interoperability between these systems should be a public policy goal. I don't have to buy an AT&T phone anymore to call my friends; not sure why I have to buy iOS to chat with them.
I agree with you but this is a problem that date backs to the 90s (anyone remember Bitlbee, Trillion, Pidgeon, etc?). Unfortunately incompatibility is seen by businesses a feature rather than a flaw -- despite the annoyances it causes for users.
At one point the US Govt did mandate interoperability on AOL Messenger, once it became the dominant platform.
So there is precedent for this, but we live in very different times now.
So there is precedent for this, but we live in very different times now.
What if we made a Internet Standard for messaging and presence?
>What if we made a Internet Standard for messaging and presence?
That's a wonderful idea. In fact, we've had such a standard since 1999 (protocol codified in 2004[0])
It's called XMPP[1]
[0] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP
That's a wonderful idea. In fact, we've had such a standard since 1999 (protocol codified in 2004[0])
It's called XMPP[1]
[0] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP
Not only that, but a lot of closed messaging platforms were originally built on XMPP.
There's been a few open standards. The problem isn't that standards exist, it's that walled gardens are generally more profitable.
In fact Google Talk, Facebook Messenger and Skype were all either based upon, or supported XMPP...and now don't. Slack used to support IRC and not doesn't. There's a term often credited to Microsoft that also applies here: embrace, extend, extinguish.
In fact Google Talk, Facebook Messenger and Skype were all either based upon, or supported XMPP...and now don't. Slack used to support IRC and not doesn't. There's a term often credited to Microsoft that also applies here: embrace, extend, extinguish.
SMS, MMS, and RCS are examples of such standards, although only SMS/MMS have full support on both iphone and android.
I don't mind the interoperability. Take email for example. Even if you avoid Gmail/Google, so many people do, so Googs eventually gets your email anyway. So we chat, even if you don't use FB, if someone you chat with does, they still get that conversation. So the interoperability provides a buffer or insulator between you and the company you are wanting to avoid.
Then again, I've kinda given up on email privacy since at least half of my emails go to Google's servers anyway. I'm not sure if we can avoid Facebook having my IP address (or whatever future attack vectors are found after the protocol has been standardised) if I message WhatsApp users from my Signal account.
Interoperability is tricky when one set of apps has end to end encryption as a requirement, and the other set has absence of end to end encryption as a requirement.
> WhatsApp is massive in Europe.
You're completely right that messaging clients is regional, but it's even more regional than just "Europe". I'm always confused when people claim that WhatsApp is huge in Europe, because I know literally only two people who use it. They only use WhatsApp because they have friends outside Europe.
I think we need to think in terms of single countries when talking messaging apps. Again take WhatsApp. Pretty big in Germany and Spain, but almost non-existing in Denmark (who instead rely more on Facebook Messenger or iMessage).
You're completely right that messaging clients is regional, but it's even more regional than just "Europe". I'm always confused when people claim that WhatsApp is huge in Europe, because I know literally only two people who use it. They only use WhatsApp because they have friends outside Europe.
I think we need to think in terms of single countries when talking messaging apps. Again take WhatsApp. Pretty big in Germany and Spain, but almost non-existing in Denmark (who instead rely more on Facebook Messenger or iMessage).
It's nr 1 in Germany UK Spain Italy Portugal Switzerland Austria Belgium Netherlands Norway Greece. That's like 90% of Europe.
I assume you're in the US. In most of Europe Whatsapp is the main communication platform. SMS is dead and Android is more popular than iOS, so no iMessage either.
In the UAE (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc), it's almost impossible to live without WhatsApp since almost every business does customer support using it.
Want to get a delivery? You'll be told about it via WhatsApp. Want to order food online? WhatsApp. Want to pick up your laundry? WhatsApp. etc. It's everywhere here and totally dominant. Deciding not to use it would make your life significantly harder.
Want to get a delivery? You'll be told about it via WhatsApp. Want to order food online? WhatsApp. Want to pick up your laundry? WhatsApp. etc. It's everywhere here and totally dominant. Deciding not to use it would make your life significantly harder.
I tried to precipiate a shift away from Whatsapp the last time they did a privacy grab a year or two ago. But so many people use it for group messaging. The gravity around Whatsapp is enough to prevent people swapping to Signal in my circles.
Now I've got so many messaging apps. I just want one. Only one.
(based in the UK)
Now I've got so many messaging apps. I just want one. Only one.
(based in the UK)
Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp.
People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.
People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.
It can depend a lot on where in the world you and your friend group are or are from. It's quite popular with the Indian H1B contractors in my office in the US for example but not too many of my US friends use it. Same story with my fiancé and her lab groups which have a lot of European grad students and post docs, it's quite common there too.
Usa?
Cause what parent described is common in EU + LATAM
Cause what parent described is common in EU + LATAM
I don't even know what iMessage is.
Apple's SMS/IM client. Only available on Apple operating systems.
Something something american teenagers bubble colours?
Same here, I’ve never even heard someone I know say the word “WhatsApp” in my life.
How _dare_ they not having xmpp and matrix accounts while I, the real mensch, selfhost both _servers_.
And what's with all the downmods and downright flags lately? I'm trying to be funny here.
And what's with all the downmods and downright flags lately? I'm trying to be funny here.
No humor allowed. HN is srs bsns
Generally it's no zippy one-liner putdowns, more than no humour. I think the general idea is that if you want to criticise something, you should directly write out an argument against it.
In this case the joke wasn't even related to the discussion, since neither Signal[0] nor Telegram are self-hosted anyway.
[0] You can sort of self-host Signal, but last time I looked there was no way to change the URL in the client without rebuilding it, and it's not federated, so that's pretty pointless unless you also get all your friends to install your new version too.
In this case the joke wasn't even related to the discussion, since neither Signal[0] nor Telegram are self-hosted anyway.
[0] You can sort of self-host Signal, but last time I looked there was no way to change the URL in the client without rebuilding it, and it's not federated, so that's pretty pointless unless you also get all your friends to install your new version too.
Some people are shallower and less humorous than the others, and can't get the reference and joke where others can. I am fine with that, not that I want to be king of HN with best karma of them all. I just like to hang around bright humorous people, not shallow smugs.
The discussion was about some people getting offended because some other people don't have whatsapp accounts.
I selfhost xmpp (ejabberd) and matrix (synapse) servers for my friends and family. When someone asks - and this happens fairly often - how come I don't have [insert evil big tech IM company here] account, and how can I be contacted, I say I can be contacted by means of open federated protocol like xmpp or matrix, using open source apps like conversations or element, having account on one of many xmpp or matrix servers, including ones that I administer.
Most people say 'ok whatever man', but some say tell me more and get to get in touch with me.
Because of my knowledge and skill to avoid Evil Greed, and because I am actively working on liberating people from it, I think of myself as a better man than those who argue whether Signal is better than WhatsApp or Viber or whatever. And at the same time I remind myself I am no better than anyone or anything else in the Universe. And I am quite auto-ironic about it.
Is this enough lines of explanation?
The discussion was about some people getting offended because some other people don't have whatsapp accounts.
I selfhost xmpp (ejabberd) and matrix (synapse) servers for my friends and family. When someone asks - and this happens fairly often - how come I don't have [insert evil big tech IM company here] account, and how can I be contacted, I say I can be contacted by means of open federated protocol like xmpp or matrix, using open source apps like conversations or element, having account on one of many xmpp or matrix servers, including ones that I administer.
Most people say 'ok whatever man', but some say tell me more and get to get in touch with me.
Because of my knowledge and skill to avoid Evil Greed, and because I am actively working on liberating people from it, I think of myself as a better man than those who argue whether Signal is better than WhatsApp or Viber or whatever. And at the same time I remind myself I am no better than anyone or anything else in the Universe. And I am quite auto-ironic about it.
Is this enough lines of explanation?
Eh, I think it is a good rule personally. At least for reddit-style low-effort one liner humor, not that I haven't been guilty of posting that myself.
On the contrary. HN loves humor. You just need to put some effort into it (or get lucky with timing).
Use mautrix-whatsapp [1] on a home server to bridge Matrix chat to WhatsApp and (optionally) add a dedicated VoIP phone number for WhatApp.
Allows you to connect to/chat with WhatApp users using Matrix/Element.
[1]: https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp
Allows you to connect to/chat with WhatApp users using Matrix/Element.
[1]: https://github.com/mautrix/whatsapp
Not GP commenter, but I suspect you're mistaking a functional issue (not wanting to use Whatsapp's applications) from a moral issue (not wanting to use the Whatsapp platform).
Somewhat you are right - but it is difficult to differentiate between the two: I don't want to use Whatsapp for moral issues, but I also a) don't want to loose connections to people who still use the platform and b) I don't believe in actiely convincing peole of anything. They have to reach these conclusions themselves - until then, I can choose mautrix to stay connected, limiting my interaction with the platform to the bare minimum.
how to ping you to know a bit more of that experience ?
I have also been using this for nearly a year now, you can reach me at https://chagai.website
Why isnt it possible to delete amazon account permanently ? Amazon still doesn't give option to delete purchase history which is kind of super annoying.
I think Amazon is actually a different story to a certain extent. Sure, you can delete your account, but at the end of the day you've transacted with them and they can keep a record of who they've transacted with, right? Personally I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.
> I think it would be unreasonable for me to demand that a shop I buy from delete the record of who purchased it.
Why ? for recent transaction, they need to keep it for tax purposes but they have no legal need to keep old records.
Why ? for recent transaction, they need to keep it for tax purposes but they have no legal need to keep old records.
I don't think "need" matters here. They have a record of a transaction, and they want to keep that record. I don't think I have a right to demand that they delete that data.
The GDPR/CCPA/etc. likely has different requirements here, and probably requires deletion after they're no longer needed (for tax purposes or whatever).
But I personally have financial records going back decades, so I can't fault a company for wanting to do the same thing.
The GDPR/CCPA/etc. likely has different requirements here, and probably requires deletion after they're no longer needed (for tax purposes or whatever).
But I personally have financial records going back decades, so I can't fault a company for wanting to do the same thing.
In some countries, they need to keep it for 10 years for tax and audit reasons.
I wouldn't call 10 years "recent transactions". Heck, for most of the online shops, it's more like "forever".
I wouldn't call 10 years "recent transactions". Heck, for most of the online shops, it's more like "forever".
Which countries?
Also at least in the EU you're legally mandated to keep transaction history along with customer information for some number of years iirc. Don't know how that combines with gdpr.
Actually the GDPR is very clear about this.[0] Instead of setting an arbitrary limit, it says it should be the shortest period necessary in the context of other laws and requirements. So if you need to keep the records for 5 years for tax reasons, you should delete them after 5 years.
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
Yes, and one of the cost of the implementation was actually the justification of keeping data, and segregating said data. We had some data we could keep 10 years, some (most) only two, some had to be deleted once the client left.
Thanks for clarifying + supplying references :)
Because Amazon still has to have a record of the purchase. It's part of routine recordkeeping laws while running a business.
They could unlink it from your purchase history, but they would still have to maintain the record of the purchase. I believe this is effectively what 'Archiving' order does.
They could unlink it from your purchase history, but they would still have to maintain the record of the purchase. I believe this is effectively what 'Archiving' order does.
> Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.
Network effect is irrelevant for pure messaging services. If someone needs to talk to you, they'll send a pigeon if they have to.
Network effect is irrelevant for pure messaging services. If someone needs to talk to you, they'll send a pigeon if they have to.
You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.
>You underestimate the power of convenience. It doesn't bother me much, but I've lost friends because we couldn't keep in touch anywhere other than facebook and whatsapp. Eventually, anyone can stop needing to talk to you.
Then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they? If they were, they might make an effort, no?
Then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they? If they were, they might make an effort, no?
Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.
>Perhaps not, but often there's value in maintaining casual friendships.
A good point. I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those.
Take from that what you will.
A good point. I can't (and don't pretend to) speak for anyone else, but I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those.
Take from that what you will.
Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?
>Deleting WhatsApp, [...], has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.
This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy.
E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them.
On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.
The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.
This practical application of your advice depends on where a particular person sits in their social hierarchy.
E.g. an influential person that's a "hub" or "connector" in their social circle can switch from WhatsApp to Signal ... or insist on email only ... or insist on no email and only hardcopy snail mail (Donald Knuth) -- and others will follow their lead or accommodate them.
On the other hand, if you're one of the folks at the "spokes" or "edges" of social graphs... being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.
The above difference in social influence happens in Asia countries where many use WhatsApp beyond personal relationships for business to sell items or find work. If the business contacts you depend on for getting income use WhatsApp, you deleting WhatsApp just means you get $0 because they'd rather deal with other vendors who don't force them the hassle of switching to Signal. Power and leverage in social graphs matter.
This is an excellent point.
I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.
Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.
I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.
Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.
> because others don't care to switch to reach you.
I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything.
Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary.
Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.
I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case. Contrary to popular belief is that you don't miss out on anything.
Business contacts are another matter, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels. Same principle applies. If they don't make the effort, it wasn't a good contact anyway, although there are side effects because convinience is important. A bit of excentricity isn't a deal breaker, on the contrary.
Clout chasing is exactly the angle social media tries to satisfy.
>I don't think it is worth holding contact in that case.
That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends".
People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here.
>, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels.
No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them.
>, although there are side effects
If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside.
>Clout chasing
It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.)
In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.
That's a common counterargument that's similar to "then I guess they weren't very good friends, were they?!?" -- but oversimplifies the complexity of social life. It's not a simple binary dichotomy between "very good friends" and "no friends".
People also have an in-between status of "weak ties" that are mutually beneficial : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
These types of relationships are more fragile and easier to "lose" by putting up barriers to communication. It's not realistic to impose a condition of "either you follow me to the Signal network or you weren't really my friend at all" on the whole world. Everybody doesn't have same weight of importance to everyone else and that's ok. Dunbar's Number may also be relevant here.
>, but every professional understands if you want to use other channels.
No they don't if you're one of hundreds of "disposable vendors" in Asia or other parts of the world using WhatsApp for business. The other business professional (with more leverage) just ignores your excentricity and works with others who don't inconvenience them.
>, although there are side effects
If the "side effects" are $0 income, that's a really big deal. It seems like you swept this aside.
>Clout chasing
It's not about about chasing "clout". Unfortunately, I used the word "influential" and I forgot that it has been tainted by recent phenomenon of "social media influencer". I couldn't think of a better word for "significant connector node on a social graph" other than "influential". (I think it's irony that by Donald Knuth insisting on USPS snail mail for correspondence -- and people actually getting past that friction to contact him -- that actually proves he has clout.)
In any case, I think your perspective is shaped by your experience in Western Europe so you really can't empathize with how some people (farmers, etc) depend on WhatsApp for their livelihood. They don't use it like a TikTok type of social network.
Remember Klout?
>being defiant by deleting WhatsApp doesn't accomplish anything because others don't care to switch to reach you.
I disagree. It accomplishes at least one thing -- WhatsApp isn't tracking/recording your messages any more. That's what I would care about.
I disagree. It accomplishes at least one thing -- WhatsApp isn't tracking/recording your messages any more. That's what I would care about.
So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.
>So you prevent them from recording your conversations with friends by having no conversations and no friends.
You're absolutely right. Because there's no such thing as other messaging apps, email, social media platforms, SMS/MMS, telephone, written correspondence or discussion over a beer/coffee/meal. Only WhatsApp exists.
Gee, I wish someone would invent some or all of of those things -- I'm so lonely! /s
You're absolutely right. Because there's no such thing as other messaging apps, email, social media platforms, SMS/MMS, telephone, written correspondence or discussion over a beer/coffee/meal. Only WhatsApp exists.
Gee, I wish someone would invent some or all of of those things -- I'm so lonely! /s
You aren't asking your contacts to delete WhatsApp as well in solidarity or to fully "switch", you are asking them to simply use Signal to communicate with you. If you mention you are uncomfortable using WhatsApp, and they aren't willing to use Signal to message you, they likely aren't worth talking to.
I deleted Facebook/Messenger awhile ago, and asked that people use Signal to communicate with me. All of the people I cared to speak to use Signal to message me, and many of them have used it for other purposes as well. That hasn't precluded them from using whatever they were using before. This only applies to the personal sphere of my life, conducting business with WhatsApp may be a different issue entirely.
I deleted Facebook/Messenger awhile ago, and asked that people use Signal to communicate with me. All of the people I cared to speak to use Signal to message me, and many of them have used it for other purposes as well. That hasn't precluded them from using whatever they were using before. This only applies to the personal sphere of my life, conducting business with WhatsApp may be a different issue entirely.
In Europe, people just assume that you have it. I often get the first contact from pensions and airbnbs on WhatsApp. I convinced a few people to switch to Telegram, but there are still a few stragglers on WhatsApp and even Facebook Messenger.
I'd say in parts of Europe. E.g. in Slavic regions Telegram is popular. In other regions Signal. Among my circles FB messenger seems to be the most popular.
I believe Telegram is inferior to WhatsApp due to missing default end-to-end encryption.
It is sadly very common in western europe, but you can easily live without it too.
Most of the time tech companies have their fans and detractors. In virtually any discussion about tech companies, you’ll find people for the company in question, and others against, Apple and Google are great examples.
I find it interesting that I don’t think I’ve ever come across any discussion about Facebook (and I read a lot of them) where anyone is defending them. Either people are strongly against the company, or at most they admit grudgingly that they do use Facebook services because everyone else they know uses it.
The only people I ever hear championing Facebook are Zuckerberg and other top management.
I don’t have a Facebook account, so possibly all the positive discussion is on Facebook itself and I’m not seeing it.
I find it interesting that I don’t think I’ve ever come across any discussion about Facebook (and I read a lot of them) where anyone is defending them. Either people are strongly against the company, or at most they admit grudgingly that they do use Facebook services because everyone else they know uses it.
The only people I ever hear championing Facebook are Zuckerberg and other top management.
I don’t have a Facebook account, so possibly all the positive discussion is on Facebook itself and I’m not seeing it.
>I don’t have a Facebook account, so possibly all the positive discussion is on Facebook itself and I’m not seeing it.
We don't like to admit it but the HN demographic is a self-reinforcing "filter bubble" on some topics such as Facebook, Uber, Apple. Outside of HN, almost all non-techies I interact with don't complain about them.
I remember seeing a lady's gardening channel on Youtube and wondered how she got so many lucrative sponsorships since her subscriber count and view counts seemed too low. I later learned it's because the majority of her gardening fans' interactions and video views actually come from Facebook and not Youtube. Same for demographic of sewers for quilts & clothes.
So the Venn Diagram with one circle being female gardeners/sewers and the other circle being HN commenters have virtually no overlap. Hence we're in a filter bubble. The gardeners/sewers aren't complaining about Facebook because it's a positive in their lives and HN commenters never see that. I also read somewhere that Pinterest and Instagram are also more heavily skewed towards females.
(Because I don't have a Facebook account and got a lot of my info about FB from HN, it made me ignorant of the various communities that use FB in positive ways. I often wonder what other ways HN distorts my views that I'm totally unaware of.)
We don't like to admit it but the HN demographic is a self-reinforcing "filter bubble" on some topics such as Facebook, Uber, Apple. Outside of HN, almost all non-techies I interact with don't complain about them.
I remember seeing a lady's gardening channel on Youtube and wondered how she got so many lucrative sponsorships since her subscriber count and view counts seemed too low. I later learned it's because the majority of her gardening fans' interactions and video views actually come from Facebook and not Youtube. Same for demographic of sewers for quilts & clothes.
So the Venn Diagram with one circle being female gardeners/sewers and the other circle being HN commenters have virtually no overlap. Hence we're in a filter bubble. The gardeners/sewers aren't complaining about Facebook because it's a positive in their lives and HN commenters never see that. I also read somewhere that Pinterest and Instagram are also more heavily skewed towards females.
(Because I don't have a Facebook account and got a lot of my info about FB from HN, it made me ignorant of the various communities that use FB in positive ways. I often wonder what other ways HN distorts my views that I'm totally unaware of.)
Outside of our bubble I don't see complaints about the company itself, but complaints about the product and content.
It seems nobody is very happy with Facebook. I have family members who will always agree that Facebook is full of uninformed opinions and everyone always seems to be disagreeing/arguing and it's full of complaining and political posts. And yet people continue to use it.
It seems nobody is very happy with Facebook. I have family members who will always agree that Facebook is full of uninformed opinions and everyone always seems to be disagreeing/arguing and it's full of complaining and political posts. And yet people continue to use it.
> And yet people continue to use it.
In my experience the people complaining about the junk content on facebook have checked out from using facebook very much years ago. Among my millenial peers at least engagement across all social networks has dropped like a stone. FB just exists to dump wedding photos now.
In my experience the people complaining about the junk content on facebook have checked out from using facebook very much years ago. Among my millenial peers at least engagement across all social networks has dropped like a stone. FB just exists to dump wedding photos now.
At least in my opinion for this on HN, you get downvoted very quickly on HN to have such an opinion.
I work for FAANG. I generally dont comment on HN but recently I read every thread about FAANG to have a thread that read like you should be ashamed to work there. I replied, Even before i worked there, I used their products to keep in touch woth my family/friends, at a startup I worked at we used open source tech from these companies, I also have always benefited from owning the stock in my retirement account via index funds. So why is it that working for the company is not ok but being a consumer, investor etc ok. And also asked if there's an acceptable list of companies to work at without moral judgements. Pointed out that people have strong feelings about big tech, big pharma, big oil etc etc. As you'd imagine, I was downvoted pretty soon and you realize trying to convince a stranger on the internet is pointless and gains you nothing.
I work for FAANG. I generally dont comment on HN but recently I read every thread about FAANG to have a thread that read like you should be ashamed to work there. I replied, Even before i worked there, I used their products to keep in touch woth my family/friends, at a startup I worked at we used open source tech from these companies, I also have always benefited from owning the stock in my retirement account via index funds. So why is it that working for the company is not ok but being a consumer, investor etc ok. And also asked if there's an acceptable list of companies to work at without moral judgements. Pointed out that people have strong feelings about big tech, big pharma, big oil etc etc. As you'd imagine, I was downvoted pretty soon and you realize trying to convince a stranger on the internet is pointless and gains you nothing.
A lot of people on HN downvote for disagreement, which I think creates a chilling effect, reinforces groupthink and results in a warped view of reality. For what it's worth, I try to balance that out by upvoting gray'd out comments that are sincere or well argued regardless of whether I personally agree with the statement or not. One of the things I appreciate about HN is seeing positions that challenge my existing ideas.
FWIW, I own stock in a lot of companies that are net-negatives for society directly and through index funds. When these companies succeed in the market I get a consolation prize.
In our modern market, I don't believe that my owning FB stock is contributing to their success. If I were to work for them I would be.
In our modern market, I don't believe that my owning FB stock is contributing to their success. If I were to work for them I would be.
The fact is that working for a company is investing a lot of your time and energy to make this company more powerful.
Your work count. Really.
So your work should be as much as possible aligned with your moral values. Lot of people blind themselves with the salary and weak justification. I find that complete hypocrisy.
Now, is the company you are working for aligned with your own moral values?
Only you can answer that ;-)
Your work count. Really.
So your work should be as much as possible aligned with your moral values. Lot of people blind themselves with the salary and weak justification. I find that complete hypocrisy.
Now, is the company you are working for aligned with your own moral values?
Only you can answer that ;-)
Its funny, lot of the responses for this thread are investing my retirement money and profiting off it is fine, using products/services of such companies is fine, but working there, that's where I draw the line, that's just morally wrong. Its a lot of I'll draw the line where I want to and belittle others who do it differently.
It's not like people are going to their broker and saying "buy facebook" then going online and saying "ban facebook." Most people probably have no clue that their retirement indexes include like 1% facebook stock in the mix. With the way retirement funds are set up in this country you really don't have much choice in the investment mix unless you are savvy and with time on your hands to study and pick your own horses.
Using another example, I'm against war and violence too, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite for paying taxes that go on to buy bombs, and paying taxes that fund war is just not the same thing at all as me working for Blackwater directly.
Using another example, I'm against war and violence too, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite for paying taxes that go on to buy bombs, and paying taxes that fund war is just not the same thing at all as me working for Blackwater directly.
Ok, let's agree that some of us have a moral position against x and are benefiting financially from x but are too busy or too ignorant to do anything about it.
And, lets also agree that being employed a company is bad, the argument still seems to breakdown soon enough. Generally, the engineers are to blame because they make enough money and could choose other options, but not others capacities of employment e.g. a driver, cleaning staff, cook at one of their food courts etc. at the same company. They could've found other options too if they really wanted. Should a person making minimum wage now look into a company and its moral decisions in the past/present before taking up a job. Generally seems to come down to, oh its wrong but beyond a $ amount (an arbitrary line I just drew for myself), which just seems a very inconsistent moral position to me. Well, if you still think its a reasonable position to say its wrong but when the benefit you reap is > $x, can one of you tell me above what $ amount do the moral values apply?
And, lets also agree that being employed a company is bad, the argument still seems to breakdown soon enough. Generally, the engineers are to blame because they make enough money and could choose other options, but not others capacities of employment e.g. a driver, cleaning staff, cook at one of their food courts etc. at the same company. They could've found other options too if they really wanted. Should a person making minimum wage now look into a company and its moral decisions in the past/present before taking up a job. Generally seems to come down to, oh its wrong but beyond a $ amount (an arbitrary line I just drew for myself), which just seems a very inconsistent moral position to me. Well, if you still think its a reasonable position to say its wrong but when the benefit you reap is > $x, can one of you tell me above what $ amount do the moral values apply?
I mean, I wouldn't work minimum wage for a company like this either. There is no shortage of job opportunities these days at the bottom level what with most every business having staffing issues.
Well I think there’s quite the difference any. A regular user of Facebook is worth roughly tens of euros. But working there rewards you with a salary that’s easily upwards of 200k. Given that they’re not losing money if you, you could consider yourself as one of the few power users around by providing a value to evil corp north of your salary. So I think you can definitely differentiate between a regular user contributing 50euro of value, or contributing >200k of value. Making numbers up here but suffice to say you’re talking about an order of difference north of 100x. Definitely something to think about I reckon, and definitely something reasonable to draw the line at. Imagine hyping the evil corp and adding 100+ users would equate to a year of working there, roughly.
So it is morally wrong but only above a $ amount? :)
Anyway, the irony is interesting, some people on HN unable to control the urge to tell a stranger on the internet that he/she is morally inferior without considering how it makes them feel, while blaming another platform for similar effects and how it negatively impacts people.
Anyway, the irony is interesting, some people on HN unable to control the urge to tell a stranger on the internet that he/she is morally inferior without considering how it makes them feel, while blaming another platform for similar effects and how it negatively impacts people.
No, you argued that people draw an arbitrary line regarding morals when working for evil corp vs consuming. I tried to indicate to you why that line isn’t so arbitrary as it indicates a factor of x100, or whatever exact number it is that is many times larger.
Also, really few people say "you should feel bad for doing it".
What they say is "I would feel bad for doing it".
Which is quite different.
What they say is "I would feel bad for doing it".
Which is quite different.
How about working there and doing a bad job? Is that a moral postion?
I'll step into that role then. I am a member of some Facebook groups that have been hugely helpful on a personal level. The community page software may not be perfect, but it is accessible and can bring together a really heterogeneous user base with diverse perspectives, much more so than Reddit. The groups pages are entirely separate from the toxic feed. I would be absolutely bummed if they were to blink out of existence.
As a counter point to this. Facebook has (tried and mostly succeeded) to replace community forums that used to be either public or with open registration and without the negative effects of facebook.
Stuff that's running phpbb or other similar software.
Stuff that's running phpbb or other similar software.
I was bummed too when fb blinked my community ran forums out of existence
I would imagine that the proponents of Facebook are the huge huge amounts of people who are less technologically savvy, don't really give two shits about privacy surrounding data they perceive to given up willingly, and aren't really involved in any sort of discourse.
However, they absolutely love the fact that they've been able to keep in contact with family, old friends, and see the value of the human connection they are able to get through Facebook as far greater than the negatives.
However, they absolutely love the fact that they've been able to keep in contact with family, old friends, and see the value of the human connection they are able to get through Facebook as far greater than the negatives.
[deleted]
I am unfortunately still on Facebook - I moved to another continent in the last few years and it's the only way to keep track of people.
At least from my friends, everyone hates it, left, center and right-wing alike.
At least from my friends, everyone hates it, left, center and right-wing alike.
The irony here that it's harder to delete your HN account and all your comments
HN has anonymous accounts and personally identifiable information can be hidden or removed by the user, which to me has the same effect. HN complains to me that I cannot reset my pwd if I ever forget it because I didn't even share my mail.
People often claim anonymous platforms are doomed to fail but I think social media is the main problem currently.
People often claim anonymous platforms are doomed to fail but I think social media is the main problem currently.
I changed my HN username earlier this year for reasons.
However if you search HN via the Algolia search link at the bottom of this page, you can still find my old posts under my old username.
Not to mention the 1,000s of self-hosted HN scrapers out there.
However if you search HN via the Algolia search link at the bottom of this page, you can still find my old posts under my old username.
Not to mention the 1,000s of self-hosted HN scrapers out there.
You can email dang and they'll work with you depending on what privacy stuff you need, but yeah it's a manual process.
People have changed the users on old comments they no longer want associated with themselves and such. There was discussion a while back about it (I haven't taken advantage of this myself).
People have changed the users on old comments they no longer want associated with themselves and such. There was discussion a while back about it (I haven't taken advantage of this myself).
>removed by the user
Only within a certain timeframe. Unlike reddit eventually your comments are no longer deletable or editable by you, and you have to email the webmaster in this case to ask for an old comment to be manually deleted, its not even an automated mechanism.
Only within a certain timeframe. Unlike reddit eventually your comments are no longer deletable or editable by you, and you have to email the webmaster in this case to ask for an old comment to be manually deleted, its not even an automated mechanism.
True. But the associated user might not be identifiable and I think you are free to edit any details here any time. You cannot really do much with raxxorrax or asdff.
Is it harder, are you sure? There isn’t a button, but HN also doesn’t try to talk you out of it.
Unlike Facebook, Hacker News has no Personally Identifiable Information on you, didn’t ask for any, and isn’t trying to gather any. Email address might be the lone exception, but you can use any throwaway email you want. So you might have chosen to share some, but other than email, HN has no way to index it or even know that it’s personal to you. There’s no network, no photos, no credit cards. There are no ads that HN is selling your PII to. Unlike FB, HN doesn’t do any EU specific business or target EU residents in any way, so combined with the complete lack of PII, it’s very likely GDPR does not apply to HN. Comments aren’t enough, they don’t act as a catalog of PII.
That said, have you tried emailing HN to see if they’ll happily delete your comments? If there was a legitimate problem that you needed to erase, if your identity become known against your will, I’d bet the mods here would be happy to help you.
Unlike Facebook, Hacker News has no Personally Identifiable Information on you, didn’t ask for any, and isn’t trying to gather any. Email address might be the lone exception, but you can use any throwaway email you want. So you might have chosen to share some, but other than email, HN has no way to index it or even know that it’s personal to you. There’s no network, no photos, no credit cards. There are no ads that HN is selling your PII to. Unlike FB, HN doesn’t do any EU specific business or target EU residents in any way, so combined with the complete lack of PII, it’s very likely GDPR does not apply to HN. Comments aren’t enough, they don’t act as a catalog of PII.
That said, have you tried emailing HN to see if they’ll happily delete your comments? If there was a legitimate problem that you needed to erase, if your identity become known against your will, I’d bet the mods here would be happy to help you.
I wonder at the time limit to edit/delete a comment on HN. I try to think carefully about the things I say and often have a change in heart about saying something long after the change window has expired. Is the logic behind this limit explained anywhere?
I do not understand what is the fuss about deleting your Facebook account.
1. Create a VPS 2. Install one of those Facebook scraping tools 3. Use your account credentials and start scraping. 4, Facebook will freak out, lock you out and ask for passport and ID cards. Do not provide any.
During their next account purge, they will remove your account.
1. Create a VPS 2. Install one of those Facebook scraping tools 3. Use your account credentials and start scraping. 4, Facebook will freak out, lock you out and ask for passport and ID cards. Do not provide any.
During their next account purge, they will remove your account.
Or....just click throught the form few times and have it deleted this way, what's the big deal?
When I did it in 2016 I wrote a small script to undo every activity I had ever done. Then I deleted it. Also changed the password to a max length so it was impossible to login for the 30days.
I am curious as to what happens to the data.
This is why we need whistleblowers. It could be very easy for Facebook to knowingly keep this information and just make it a trade secret. The risk of being exposed for lying probably doesn't matter since there are so many ways around it without "lying".
But who am I kidding. I would love to know which private company has the most personal info:
- Lexis Nexis,
- West Law,
- Cellphone companies,
- TRW (credit rating companies)
- VISA (Amex, Mastercard), or
- Facebook
This is why we need whistleblowers. It could be very easy for Facebook to knowingly keep this information and just make it a trade secret. The risk of being exposed for lying probably doesn't matter since there are so many ways around it without "lying".
But who am I kidding. I would love to know which private company has the most personal info:
- Lexis Nexis,
- West Law,
- Cellphone companies,
- TRW (credit rating companies)
- VISA (Amex, Mastercard), or
The best options are:
- never sign up in the first place
- give entirely fake data, as much as possible
- change data to rubbish data afterward
- just never log in again, I am pretty sure dormant accounts are the worst, nothing to collect, nothing to track, no ads can be placed there in a meaningful way.
A dormant account with rubbish data is the best way to hinder their profits.
A dormant account with rubbish data is the best way to hinder their profits.
Isn't 'delete' a bit misleading? The page does not say that whey would delete your data, only 'account'.
Had to temporarily whitelist the page and turn on JS to view (there wasn't even a <noscript> message saying I needed JS). Then since I am in Spain, I got a bunch of Spanish, when I'm an English speaker. This is bad UX. I expected better from FB.
This is intentional.
They don't want you to be able to do this, so they make pages unusable.
I tried to delink Facebook and Instagram recently. They make you re-sign into FB via Insta... and it refused to sign me in (I was 100% using the correct password and tried many times). The sign-in just kept failing, until I was like "This is intentional, and Facebook will not let me de-link the apps." and gave up.
Really time for the FTC and DOJ to take Facebook all the way to trial for this sort of stuff. No more settlements!
They don't want you to be able to do this, so they make pages unusable.
I tried to delink Facebook and Instagram recently. They make you re-sign into FB via Insta... and it refused to sign me in (I was 100% using the correct password and tried many times). The sign-in just kept failing, until I was like "This is intentional, and Facebook will not let me de-link the apps." and gave up.
Really time for the FTC and DOJ to take Facebook all the way to trial for this sort of stuff. No more settlements!
Does FB still attempt to Guilt you when you try to quit, e.g., showing 5 pictures of your Friends saying that your friends will "miss you" ?
Brandon will miss you. Catherine will miss you. David will miss you. Kevin will miss you. Sarah will miss you.
Brandon will miss you. Catherine will miss you. David will miss you. Kevin will miss you. Sarah will miss you.
Just upload some bannable content. That is way faster then regular process.
I'm hard boycotting Facebook now. I've never had an account with them and only used WhatsApp, but stopped using that a while ago. Used to enjoy my Oculus Rift, sold it when the forced account merging was announced and bought an Index to replace it. I was at a conference today and skipped a talk by a Facebook engineer. As petty as it sounds, I'm staying clear of anyone or anything associated with FB. Everyone working for them is complicit.
I think I'd rather have a script I could put on a Raspberry Pi that periodically did actions on their site or via APIs to waste their computing power. If a few million people did that, it might make a difference. Sure, they'd try to block it, but maintainers could evolve the software, like ad blockers do.
Lost friends because they deleted their Facebook and I can’t reach them anymore :(
My first thought was immediately “first, build a time machine..”
I did this a year or so ago. I knew it was complete when I got an email from Paypal saying my Facebook account was unlinked. Funny thing...I don't remember linking my Paypal account.
So here is an idea about deleting accounts. Usually people may want to undo it sometime but if it's deleted it is deleted.
One of the things required by the GDPR is a way to export your data and even import it (article 20, right to portability). So you should implement a way to do that.
Then when users ask to delete their account, create an export, encrypt it with a one-time use key which you mail to the user, store this encrypted dump and remove the rest of the data. Now if the deletion was an error the user can get their key in their email and get their account reinstated. And no one in your company can access the data in the meantime.
One of the things required by the GDPR is a way to export your data and even import it (article 20, right to portability). So you should implement a way to do that.
Then when users ask to delete their account, create an export, encrypt it with a one-time use key which you mail to the user, store this encrypted dump and remove the rest of the data. Now if the deletion was an error the user can get their key in their email and get their account reinstated. And no one in your company can access the data in the meantime.
Technically very smart solution, but legally way too risky.
If there's ever a breach, for example someone steals the key and then accesses the data, the fine will be super high given that the company has retrained data after the user asked to delete it.
To mitigate such risk, the company would at least need explicit consent of the user, at which point it's just as simply asking the user to not really delete their account.
A viable option, legally speaking, could be to send the dump to the user, in a way that can be easily imported back if the user ever wants to login again.
If there's ever a breach, for example someone steals the key and then accesses the data, the fine will be super high given that the company has retrained data after the user asked to delete it.
To mitigate such risk, the company would at least need explicit consent of the user, at which point it's just as simply asking the user to not really delete their account.
A viable option, legally speaking, could be to send the dump to the user, in a way that can be easily imported back if the user ever wants to login again.
> for example someone steals the key and then accesses the data
It was why I schemed it so the key is sent to the user but not kept by you. Someone steals the user key? They can ask for a restore but they won't have access to the data unless they've got the user login info too. An employee steals the encrypted data? Enjoy the time spent cracking the cryptography.
A little like one of the solutions for deletion in Event Sourced systems but instead of completely losing the keys, you give it to the user first.
It was why I schemed it so the key is sent to the user but not kept by you. Someone steals the user key? They can ask for a restore but they won't have access to the data unless they've got the user login info too. An employee steals the encrypted data? Enjoy the time spent cracking the cryptography.
A little like one of the solutions for deletion in Event Sourced systems but instead of completely losing the keys, you give it to the user first.
In many parts of Europe Whatsapp is physically embedded in the landscape (in neighborhood signs of community "watch" groups).
People have sleepwalked into a nightmare and nobody is really honest enough to admit it. Banana republics pretending their are sophisticated and caring societies.
People have sleepwalked into a nightmare and nobody is really honest enough to admit it. Banana republics pretending their are sophisticated and caring societies.
I like how "deactivate account" still keeps Facebook Messenger fully enabled and all of your posts remain online. That's probably so that your friends can ask you why you deactivated your account ;)
[deleted]
Unpopular opinion: Facebook is quite decent and gives sufficient controls over privacy to its users. Google on other hand is horrendous.
> sufficient controls over privacy to its users
He? By how, showing a cookie window in EU and not even respecting the settings in there?
He? By how, showing a cookie window in EU and not even respecting the settings in there?
>Unpopular opinion: Facebook is quite decent and gives sufficient controls over privacy to its users. Google on other hand is horrendous.
I'm not concerned about which "friends" can see my posts, it's the platform hoovering up every keystroke.
Which in-app privacy controls can stop that?
I'm not concerned about which "friends" can see my posts, it's the platform hoovering up every keystroke.
Which in-app privacy controls can stop that?
Their definition of taking a break is strange. Just don't visit Facebook lol
Also, are they still doing the shadow profiles thing where they create "accounts" for your name in order to entice other people to join Facebook? And if you join, people you might know are conveniently already waiting for you. That always seemed shady as hell.
Also, are they still doing the shadow profiles thing where they create "accounts" for your name in order to entice other people to join Facebook? And if you join, people you might know are conveniently already waiting for you. That always seemed shady as hell.
You don't need to visit facebook, you just need to visit a page that has their script embedded.
nextdns.io does a good job of blocking facebook. They base their block on https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists which has this list https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...
nextdns.io does a good job of blocking facebook. They base their block on https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists which has this list https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...
That blocklist is very narrow, I would suggest using https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/lists/facebook-ext... instead.
Or just use this RPZ policy (add *.<domain> wildcard entries as well, omitted for brevity):
Or just use this RPZ policy (add *.<domain> wildcard entries as well, omitted for brevity):
instagram.com. *.
cdninstagram.com. *.
messenger.com. *.
facebook.com. *.
fbcdn.com. *.
fbcdn.net. *.
fb.com. *.
fb.me. *.So through the downtime of Facebook I learned they have their own registrar which makes it, I think, a lot easier to figure out all domains related to that registrar and simply black list any and all domains hosted on that registrar? Than you know for sure that even a typo page won’t be tracking you. I just don’t know how to find all domains related to a given registrar and if that is even possible.
It's the same language used by gambling companies. "Take a break" rather than "Break your cycle of addiction by leaving us for good".
Not entirely surprising.
Not entirely surprising.
You don't defeat alcoholism by giving up a type of liquor. You can't quit Vodka and switch to Tequila and expect to have a different experience. Quitting Facebook/Instagram hurts FB but doesn't do much to help yourself when you do the same things on TikTok.
Many moons ago I purged everything I could, left a generic profile picture and barely logged in since. That way I 'own' my shadow profile and it is harder for someone to pretend to be me via a facebook account (I operate a 'plant your flag' policy for security as much as anything else on these public platforms).
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to log back in to the account any time soon. I think the last time I actually did log in was > 12 months ago.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head to log back in to the account any time soon. I think the last time I actually did log in was > 12 months ago.
As far as I know, they are. And, since I don't have a Facebook account, I can't find a way to submit a GDPR subject access request.
I think it should be a legal requirement that users are able to configure retention of their data. For instance that any content you post will only be retained for N number of weeks/ months/years. And that social media platforms over a certain size have to agree to auditing to ensure that this data is actually deleted.
As someone who implements these types of requirements, this suggestion just adds complexity where none is needed. In the software, and the database, and the backup strategy, and for the average user. Complexity requires time, money, and introduces bugs and user error.
Right now we are required by law to remove user data upon request (Europe). That law is strong enough to cover those who need it.
Right now we are required by law to remove user data upon request (Europe). That law is strong enough to cover those who need it.
Are you suggesting that not inconveniencing developers is more important than a right to privacy? I'd have to disagree with you if this is the case.
I've worked both for companies that fall under extra scrutiny by government due to market position and for companies that deal with data that has strict retention limits. Yes, it increases complexity, but the laws that seek to protect people's privacy are far more important than any inconvenience to companies.
(And yes: in both cases there were regular audits and any lack of compliance had very real consequences)
I've worked both for companies that fall under extra scrutiny by government due to market position and for companies that deal with data that has strict retention limits. Yes, it increases complexity, but the laws that seek to protect people's privacy are far more important than any inconvenience to companies.
(And yes: in both cases there were regular audits and any lack of compliance had very real consequences)
> Are you suggesting that not inconveniencing developers
> is more important than a right to privacy?
Actually, Telegram already does that. Similar to how your gmail account is automatically deleted after a certain time.
Actually GDPR requires you to delete data when no longer needed. How long data is needed depends on what type of data it is. For example financial transactions are covered by other laws to be kept for certain amount of time. If data is linked to a survey that is completed then, by law, that data is no longer needed and should be deleted. How long should photo likes and comments be kept? I don't think there are good guidelines or judgements regarding this but it is nevertheless something to take into consideration and in most cases delete data based on age.
[deleted]
This argument is flawed. How can you be sure if the policy is enforced at back-end?
The better way is to create a solution where users have control over data and the apps interact with data. This should have been the model from the beginning but now I guess it will never happen. Even if someone successfully implements this it will be just as hard IPv6 to adopt if not more.
The better way is to create a solution where users have control over data and the apps interact with data. This should have been the model from the beginning but now I guess it will never happen. Even if someone successfully implements this it will be just as hard IPv6 to adopt if not more.
Audits.
(And yes, I've worked for companies that deal with lots of data that has strict retention limits by law, and oh boy were there audits and oh boy are you in trouble if/when you screw up)
As for your proposed solution: I don't think I understand what you mean. Could you expand on it?
(And yes, I've worked for companies that deal with lots of data that has strict retention limits by law, and oh boy were there audits and oh boy are you in trouble if/when you screw up)
As for your proposed solution: I don't think I understand what you mean. Could you expand on it?
True audits are really good way to keep companies in check but what about a company like TikTok or companies in other countries where you are not sure if the audits are not compromised.
Regarding the solution I was talking about check out Solid by Tim Berners Lee
Regarding the solution I was talking about check out Solid by Tim Berners Lee
Naturally you can only perform meaningful audits if you can have them performed by a party you trust and you have the ability to impose sanctions due to non-compliance.
That's not going to be true for all companies, but it will be true for many companies. Especially if they have any form of economic activity within some jurisdiction. Then it is up to the users to choose services that are under some acceptable regulatory control.
The fact that it can't be made perfect with one move doesn't matter. If things can incrementally be made better for the users whose data is used to generate immense revenue, that's a step in the right direction.
Decentralized models are interesting, but surprisingly hard to do, let alone do well. Not only from a technical point of view, but from a business point of view. There is also the challenge that just about every incumbent today has a vested interest in making sure these ideas do not get traction as it would rob them of what makes companies valuable.
That's not going to be true for all companies, but it will be true for many companies. Especially if they have any form of economic activity within some jurisdiction. Then it is up to the users to choose services that are under some acceptable regulatory control.
The fact that it can't be made perfect with one move doesn't matter. If things can incrementally be made better for the users whose data is used to generate immense revenue, that's a step in the right direction.
Decentralized models are interesting, but surprisingly hard to do, let alone do well. Not only from a technical point of view, but from a business point of view. There is also the challenge that just about every incumbent today has a vested interest in making sure these ideas do not get traction as it would rob them of what makes companies valuable.
I wish there was a way to do so without having to ask people you haven't seen or met for more than a decade (if they can even still access) to verify that it is indeed you trying to access with the same mail an account that's been sitting for way too long still. I understand the possible risk and inconvenience, but I can't be alone being struck with an account like that. Hell, I'm too afraid to even see if it's public and visible now, since the last time I tried to delete it (for the fourth of fifth time, because spammers kept turning it back on by trying to login years ago, I presume) it kicked me out before I could accept the new ToS. I haven't received any responses on my queries to provide a contact for GDPR requests that isn't a blackhole, also. I should probably just try sending one at the disabled accounts address too.
Well, I think you've done everything you can. The GDPR requires a response from the data handler in a timely manner. If Facebook fails to do so, for whatever reason, you're free to contact your privacy/data regulation authorities.
Faster shortcuts:
https://deletefacebook.com/
https://deleteinstagram.com/
It's probably by design, but from experience most people will need non-trivial discipline/hacks to get around the 30 day window and avoid reflexively logging in. Would be curious to know how many people who try deleting their accounts follow through to the end
https://deletefacebook.com/
https://deleteinstagram.com/
It's probably by design, but from experience most people will need non-trivial discipline/hacks to get around the 30 day window and avoid reflexively logging in. Would be curious to know how many people who try deleting their accounts follow through to the end
I deleted mine 2 years ago, and definitely followed through on it. Once it was done, it was absolutely zero problem to have it out of my life. The only thing I’m curious about though, is what would happen if I try to login again. I’m terrified to even try, for fear that somehow it wasn’t actually deleted even though that’s exactly what I did.
Update: I decided to finally try logging in and thankfully it said it could not locate an account under my email. So I guess that's a good thing. I do wonder if it triggered something else though, just by my trying to login.
Update: I decided to finally try logging in and thankfully it said it could not locate an account under my email. So I guess that's a good thing. I do wonder if it triggered something else though, just by my trying to login.
If your email has ever appeared in any breaches, your account probably has had many login attempts.
Yes, but were those other login attempts using the actual password that was correct when my account was active? I'm probably just being paranoid... of course FB deleted my account and all its details.
I deleted mine 3 or 4 years ago, and I did end up logging in a couple of times during that 30 day window - "Oh, I'll just have a quick look at those wedding photos" or "I want to go on that trip so I best keep it logged in for that" kind of thing - purely instinctive at the time to find that info.
I imagine if you are hooked on the whole 'social interaction' thing, the 30 day sliding window is ... unhelpful.
I imagine if you are hooked on the whole 'social interaction' thing, the 30 day sliding window is ... unhelpful.
If folks can't go cold turkey I'd suggest unfollowing everyone first. It makes the site much more useful and easier to quit.
This was the trick that made it possible for me to stop being addicted to Facebook. You don’t have to fight the urge to load the app. You get a strange sense of satisfaction from slowly unfollowing everything. And the more you unfollow, the less what you’re shown is interesting. You retrain your brain by getting less and less dopamine hits from the action you couldn’t control. Then a day comes where you load the app and there’a simply nothing to see.
I recently shut down a small business and have been having nothing but trouble trying to remove it's presence online.
Facebook made me wait two weeks before giving me the option to delete it and now it's just stuck on "deleting". Bing emails me weekly saying I need to update my listing yet I've tried 3 times to mark it as closed to no avail.
The only one I've been able to remove it from has been Google so far. It's quite frustrating.
Facebook made me wait two weeks before giving me the option to delete it and now it's just stuck on "deleting". Bing emails me weekly saying I need to update my listing yet I've tried 3 times to mark it as closed to no avail.
The only one I've been able to remove it from has been Google so far. It's quite frustrating.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I actually ended up creating a new Facebook account, with fake name/details and no friends.
Most of the local information for the village I live in, and the surrounding ones is posted and discussed on Facebook.
So, if we want to join in on the Halloween trail, need to know about it on there. Christmas window displays? Yep, on Facebook.
It's kinda annoying, and I figure they probably know who I am - but at least I'm not directly giving them info :/
So, if we want to join in on the Halloween trail, need to know about it on there. Christmas window displays? Yep, on Facebook.
It's kinda annoying, and I figure they probably know who I am - but at least I'm not directly giving them info :/
I thoroughly oppose the idea that to be able to have meaningful human relationships, I need to subscribe to a walled garden run by a profit hungry private entity with an extremely bad track record of handling privacy, security and ethics.
I exited their whole ecosystem 2 years ago. Never found the urge to go back.
Leaving all of the fake-ery of Instagram and noise of Facebook behind has improved my day to day life immensely.
Many of my Whatsapp contacts had already begun to move to Signal so that helped. Some of the rest I talk to through Twitter. With the viable rest I call or use sms.
A lot of them I just let go (were dead relationships already).
I exited their whole ecosystem 2 years ago. Never found the urge to go back.
Leaving all of the fake-ery of Instagram and noise of Facebook behind has improved my day to day life immensely.
Many of my Whatsapp contacts had already begun to move to Signal so that helped. Some of the rest I talk to through Twitter. With the viable rest I call or use sms.
A lot of them I just let go (were dead relationships already).
Something seems to remain on their servers though.
I own a very short gmail.com address which I'm (far too) proud of but it does receive a lot of other people's mail; there are apparently a lot of people called Steve who don't understand how email addresses work.
Someone created and then permanently deleted a Facebook account with my address. Which has permanently locked me out of ever using my email address with Facebook (they block +alias addresses and gmail/googlemail.com too). I use Facebook casually to keep in touch with family/friends and have had to keep an old email account alive just for it. Facebook support are no help.
/rant
I own a very short gmail.com address which I'm (far too) proud of but it does receive a lot of other people's mail; there are apparently a lot of people called Steve who don't understand how email addresses work.
Someone created and then permanently deleted a Facebook account with my address. Which has permanently locked me out of ever using my email address with Facebook (they block +alias addresses and gmail/googlemail.com too). I use Facebook casually to keep in touch with family/friends and have had to keep an old email account alive just for it. Facebook support are no help.
/rant
My experience deleting Facebook has been strange. Maybe I didn't do it right, but I have continued to receive "sign in with 1-click" emails, and at one time I was notified somewhat disconcertingly that someone had memorialised me.
I don't find a problem with WhatsApp.
I don't find a problem with WhatsApp.
Deleting social media accounts is a bad idea. You should squat them and never log in.
I was going to write this. It’s a way to prevent online identity theft, to avoid someone impersonating you online.
I kept my social media accounts even though I stopped using them. If someone ever impersonates me, I can use these inactive accounts to say those are definitely mine.
I kept my social media accounts even though I stopped using them. If someone ever impersonates me, I can use these inactive accounts to say those are definitely mine.
[deleted]
I guess this page monthly hits serve as input for some KPI for their PR dept.
Why would I want to delete my Facebook account?
I abhor Facebook, I never log on, I haven’t used WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, etc. for several years, So I don’t feel like I’m giving them any information, but deleting my account only hurts me by giving away a free option? What am I missing?
I abhor Facebook, I never log on, I haven’t used WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, etc. for several years, So I don’t feel like I’m giving them any information, but deleting my account only hurts me by giving away a free option? What am I missing?
You're adding to Facebook's network value by having a Facebook presence, however minimal you deem it to be. You're inducing other people into giving Facebook information on them by maintaining a Facebook account.
Sure, but they're not getting much if anything out of me + i don't to be impersonated / i just view it as a parking a domain
Isn't this why they consider Daily/Monthly Active Users and not just accounts? If I have a Facebook account that I never log in to, I'm upping their count of users, sure, but not the DAU/MAU count, which is what marketers care about for reach.
The way to fight people who advise to use FB less or just don't login and scroll all day long, is to reframe the problem as an extremist binary choice, either use FB three hours per day every day or go to huge effort to delete everything. Most people will choose the less extreme of the "binary" options of continuing to use FB. Its a common sophistry trick.
I wish more people would consider the deletion of facebooks from their lives. It has become the most dangerous form of SkyNet, and most voluntarily hand their lives to them. Nothing worse than idiots attempting to make themselves relevant for no reason other than trying to be relevant.
Companies tracking and profiting from your every move are everywhere. If you’re not live-blogging your entire life on Facebook it’s really quite far from the worst offender in the surveillance economy.
- Imagine, you're living outside of USA/UK/Europe.
- Formally, it's possible to proceed with "Permanently delete my account".
- You will even receive email assuring you that two weeks later profile would be completely deleted.
- Then, couple years later you'll occasionally seen email from facebook that someone tried to log in into your ("permanently deleted") account.
- You'll try to log in, probably restore and change the password among the way.
- And after that you'll be successfully logged in. And the profile's state would be like nothing changes. Nothing. Completely.
- You'll contact Support. Seriously? They'll ignore you.
- Maybe some interaction with 3rd-party websites triggered cancellation of the process, you thought.
- Then, you'll implement blacklist just to avoid any interaction with facebook, something similar to: https://pastebin.com/FAV2f9eA and try to repeat the flow again.
- Then another 2+ years later situation will repeat again. Deja-vu. And again. And again.
There's no way to delete facebook profile if facebook didn't really care about its users.