I haven't read the decision yet. And I get that the court questioned whether Facebook's real name policy could be legal. Given potential consequences of having ones real name known. That is bloody amazing!
I agree. I don't know about this specific issue, but I support changes that would improve user's control over their data.
Well, it's rather a fundamental principle in Facebook that privacy isn't good for society. Of course, just as with Google etc, there's money to be made through targeted advertising. But with Facebook, it seems that they really do believe that people would have better relationships, and that society would work better overall, if people shared more openly with each other. If they were more connected. Arguably not as in 1984, but rather more like small towns, where everyone used to know most everything about everyone else. Of course, I don't agree. We do need complete openness for powerful institutions and people. Because there's the need for public accountability. But we need mostly complete default privacy for everyone else. To protect them from the powerful.
The plans Zuckerburg has are reprehensible. You do absolute violence to the human race by violating peoples privacy to the extent of what this guy has in mind. There are no words adequate to describe the damage he's caused with his crazy schemes. Genuineness is a word that doesn't belong in his vocabulary.
Another incident showing Facebook in bad light: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...revent-facebook-spamming-you-texts/345483002/
Yes and notwithstanding that, this "Privacy is not good for society" motto is actually doubletalk for, "Privacy is not good for mass surveillance, subjugation of the masses and global domination by the new world order neocons."
Yes, perhaps so. But maybe Zuck is just into all that touchy-feely stuff Maybe a little odd for a Harvard man, but he's in Hawaii now.
Awesome stuff, I hope more countries will follow. But what do they mean with the Facebook pixel tracking technology, aren't those blocked by ad-blockers like uBlock?
Those are also called "web bugs" or "web beacons". Was not aware that FB used them. Will have to check that out further. First discovered in emails maybe 15 - 20 years ago. A single invisible pixel can do it. Here is how it works in email: hXXp://smallbusiness.chron.com/set-email-tracking-pixel-49332.html More in general here hXXps://duckduckgo.com/?q=web+bug&t=ffab&ia=web Repalce XX Facebook says: "The cookies and pixels we use are industry standard technologies," Allan said. "We require any business that uses our technologies to provide clear notice to end-users, and we give people the right to opt-out of having data collected on sites and apps off Facebook being used for ads." I for one never, ever remember any advertiser telling ME that they are using invisible pixels!
Pixel tracking is quite prevalent in email I received one just today. Probably most webpages do it too. They send your ip address.
I have images blocked by default both in email and browser. I didn't expect github would send me email with one of those tracking pixels in it so I allowed the image, my email client is firewalls to the email server only so it caught the tracking pixels trying to connect to somewhere else, that's the only reason I knew I received one today.