🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog

> this assumes an informed user on a platform where FB exploits ppl being uninformed

Indeed it does, I assume it is the duty of every person to be informed and the consequences that come from them not informing themselves are, at least partly, their own fault.

@koherecoWatchdog

If gay users are astonished to learn somethign that should be obvious and which they state in their TOS indirectly (that they will analyze data to make inferences).. .thats kind of on them.. What that means is they need to be educated more on what data analysis can and will do.

I am all for making an effort to let more gays know that FB and any other company with access to data can and will infer their sexual orientation from their data.

But them being ignorant is no excuse or indication of injustice, thats on them for not knowing that which is obvious and expected of any company with data.

It also isnt harmful, it can be used in harmful ways, but the inference itself, in and of itself, is not harmful. If and when it is showed to be used to be harmful then those harms can and should be discussed (and there are even some minor examples of that which can be valid no doubt, I can think of a few)

@koherecoWatchdog A possible maybe threat is not an injustice.. a realization of a threat is an injustice.

Again its up to each individual to decide how much of a risk that is both in terms of how much harm they feel it will cause them for their info to get out, and how much they trust FB security to ensure it doesnt. People can and should make that judgement call.

But until that "risk" becomes real it is not an injustice and I will not attack FB simply on the grounds that they are in a position to do harm that they have not done... I **will** however chastise Fb for any harm they have already done.

Talking about potential risks is fine, but talking about them as if they are injustices that already happened is not appropriate IMO.

@koherecoWatchdog Its not a situation of injustice yet, it is a situation of potential injustice that has no occured, you are trying to mitigate the risk that it could occur... thats not an injustice, though as I said its a fine risk to try to mitigate against all the same, and i already expressed how and why that should be done (take away government oversight/power, get off the platforms you dont like the risk/reward on)

@koherecoWatchdog I dont..

1) they havent used that data to report anyone in this 76 countries we know about, so I have nothing to protest against directly.

2) in the off chance they could secretly be sharing it I would say its fine to encourage the gays in those country not tuse FB, its a precaution I would certainly understand. But its very different than me actively trying to boycott Fb from a crim they could commit but have not, and which can be protected against by people in that country not using it just in case they do, if they want (up to them what their risk tolerance is)

The bigger for me, as I said, isnt FB but its seeking reform from governments to try to reduce the power of governments in the first place, including the governments in those 76 countries.

@koherecoWatchdog being able to attach FB to my identity is a valid concern I'd say, probably your best argument so far that effects me personally.

I have also always said it was one of my biggest concerns with FB, their inability to allow me to be anonymous.

@koherecoWatchdog I have no issue with FB having that information, I dont see it as a threat to my safety beyond what i already type publicly

@koherecoWatchdog No it doesnt, and i did try to cover that by saying it would give less data than Fb might have... but as far as what **i** personally have to worry about (which is what i say, i dont really click on anything that doesnt reflect what i say as im very public) that is a non issue for me personally..

@koherecoWatchdog

you will have to be specific about what lies if you really want to get into a "how much do you trust Facebook" discussion.

I will tell you I dont entirely trust them, but then again they arent the worst in my mind either, there are worse. At least in terms of going against what they say they will do (I dont always agree with what they say they will do).

What trust i have lost for them though, and this is important, is not due to them being a big company or employing big data... its because they have behaved in ways that is contrary to their promises at times, and that looses some degree of trust, but again, they could have done worse.

@koherecoWatchdog Well I wouldnt say they shouldnt be feeding facebook exactly (though I dont disagree)...

I would just say dont feed facebook if you dont trust facebook with what they can know from what you feed.

I personally have 0 fear of what they can do with what they can learn about me right now, so i dont mind using them. I can understand if others have more to fear (for example someone who is gay in africa, its a perfectly legitimate decision for them to make out of that fear)...

that said, with the new liberal govt that seems to have become somewhat radicalized in america (I'm seeing arrests and exagerations about events I dont like) it may soon become very dangerous to be anti-democrat (i am both anti-liberal and anti-conservative), and my activities on FB may, should things get much worse, be used against me. So while I have nothing to fear just yet, it is very possible that may change soon and my decision to share as much as I did with FB could come back to bite me.

That said im really no safer on here with a public feed either. I can guarantee you the government is scraping data from those networks that dont scrape it for you. I have no doubt 99% of the diverse is archived on a govt server and being analyzed just like any other data. so being on here isnt likely to help you too much either, at least not in terms of the words you post. At best it might just ensure some of your private and encrypted communications are a bit more secure, presuming your platform encrypted them at all.

@koherecoWatchdog

Not hope at all, its about innocent until proven guilty. I treat people according to what they did, not according to what they could do.

Mitigating the concern that they could do it however isnt invalid, but it isnt an excuse to treat a company as if they did do such a crime, it is an excuse however to limit the powers of governments so they cant commit such an action.

for me the bigger issue here is when and if big tech is exposed directly cooperating with the government or others to this end and against the promises they make to their members.

The what if is worth thinking about not in terms of "lets boycott them just in case" but more so in terms of "you probably shouldnt be trusting your government and should be pushing for smaller governement"..

To me this fear is an argument for a more libertarian/republican approach (I am against a lot of republican ideas btw) of minimal government. It should be a push for people to want to significantly abolish huge portion of their national government and the taxes that support it.

It is not an argument against big tech for the sake of them being big tech or for doing analytics. Particularly if they have no been exposed in such schemes directly

@koherecoWatchdog They could, but there is no evidence that has ever happened. Doesnt mean it hasnt of course.. but without evidence its not something im going to be concerned about other than to tell people, dont use facebook if you arent comfortable with them having data on you, if you dont mind, feel free to use them.

@koherecoWatchdog

Yes I read it

as I see it

1) The information gathered was information they intentionally provided (about their behaviors and discussions) knowing that FB collects such data. The fact that FB may try to make inferences off of it is not a crime in my eyes

2) what they do with that data matters, in most cases it is within the limts of what they say they will do with it, so again not a crime. There have been instances like cambridge analytica where there was a breach and that puts them under scrutinity, rightfully so, but that is as far as my concern goes.

The solution is obvious and is exactly what I did, dont provide FB with information you dont want them to use within the boundaries of how they said they will use it, and I dont. You are in control if you dont like your data being in their hands, dont use them, if you dont mind, then use them.

@lao happy to help, and welcome to the server.

@lao With that said we do have many top professionals in STEM here and some do post mostly about STEM, others post about many things and only occasionally include STEM topics. Others come here to hang out with like-minded STEM professionals but not really with the focus of talking about business.

@lao We are not a themed server, people can and do talk about whatever they want, as our about/more page says.

We require members be STEM professionals or students, we do not require they talk exclusively about STEM however. Politics and any other topics are most welcome here.

@koherecoWatchdog That could be concerning, can you give an example of where

1) facebook gathered the information about someone being gay without that person intentionally providing that information on their own and...

2) Where facebook provided that information to a foreign government without permission from the individual such that the government was able to prosecute the individual for their sexual orientation.

So far I only heard that they have access to the information and could maybe might provide it in that way.. have they? do they? If so ill be right there with you complaining.. if they havent and its just "well they might do that", then its not going to be anywhere on my radar.

@sergiopantalone By the way the account here he posted from, @Ricky_Vaughn99 was very well known and clearly republican.. so anyone who saw those toots and thought it was legit, considering they were jokingly encouraging people to vote for hillary, clearly just took the joke seriously.

As for him having other accounts and running some elaborate scheme, no evidence has been shown for that yet, and I believe the evidence first, so if and when they show proof of some nefarious network maybe ill change my tune, as of yet not a single account has been named other than the one.

@sergiopantalone well no, he got arrested for posting obvious joke memes about being able to vote on twitter with a hash tag... he was openly republican and clearly jokingly posting about voting for hillary.

Anyone who was dumb enough to believe it, thats on them, but it was very obviously intended as a joke.