@poetgrant That's true to a certain extent, if you're actually using their products, but several of the #FAANG members also track and maintain extensive data about you even when you don't use their product. That is not because the user chose to use those services, but because site owners the users visits (invisibly) chose to use particular services. This tracking has become so extensive it's difficult to fully extricate yourself.
That is why I tend to see websites similarly to people's homes. It is their home and you enter at your own risk. The issue with tracking that I do have is that it follows you, but if you are being tracked and data collected about you in someone's home, maybe you shouldn't visit their home.
@poetgrant How much of the Internet becomes unavailable in that scenario? And how are you to know which sites allow for tracking without being tracked? See, I don't have an issue with someone deciding to sell their privacy for a service. If they choose to do that and it's understood what they're doing, that's their call. My concern is when these companies are invisibly tracking user movements without their consent or knowledge, even when those users aren't using that company's services.
Personally my issue is when these companies push their services as a public services like roads in real life ex twitter where if the only way to view the President’s microblog is through a capitalistic company that has no actually interest in protecting me.
But that is what the internet is today. Every website is another person's filesystem/program/computer and when you visit you must be aware that you are being tracked and tagged and all that.
I don't think it is ideal, but the internet hasn't conceptually changed in the last 20 years. Not really. Google made the internet faster with their distributed server model. Facebook created the global identity - 1/3
We accepted it long ago when the advertising model for the internet was more clear. Everyone was happy to see ads go away. A lot of people were happy to see targeted ads.
When my issue came in when the govt started co-opting that data and building citizen profiles. Every piece of 'regulation' that has been passed so far has constructed a scenario that enabled more profiling of citizens by their govts while restricting the companies unless they play the game - 2/3
What I have seen is that regulation never solves the problems, it tends to just bend to problems to the advantage of the regulators to get something else that they want.
(Sorry for the long response, but I just found out that Fedilabs auto composes multiple toots!) - 3/3
@poetgrant I would disagree on almost all points. The Internet has changed significantly in the last 20 years, and 20 years ago Google wasn't watching your every move. The ads haven't gone away, they're still there. That's why I have 3 separate adblockers installed. They're still showing ads, only now they're double dipping and stalking you around the internet now. I don't like being stalked in the real world either.
What I said was that it hasn't changed conceptually. Of course it has changed a lot over the years, but the concepts that make the web profitable enough for a company like Google to devise something like Material Design or Chrome and give it away for free have stayed the same over the years.
Make as much money on ads as possible, give away free software to draw more people to ads, then make even.more money on ads.
Ads are the center of the web - 1/2
I didn't mean to sound like I support FAANG in their creepiness, but at the same time, I have a very hard time faulting them. They have, in fact, done so very much to make the world a better place.
(Sorry for late response, work has been busy today) - 2/2
@poetgrant I have no problem faulting them. It can be argued that they're not doing anything (conceptually) that wasn't being done 20 years ago, but 20 years ago there was not a single company tracking everywhere you go in the real world and almost everywhere you go on the Internet. Google especially, whose motto for years was "Don't Be Evil", knew what they were doing was above and beyond acceptable, but they did it anyway.
@poetgrant I agree with you that in the end it's up to users to protect their privacy by choosing products and services that protect it.
I also agree with @mike and @kwnd, however, that the privacy implications are not always clear to users (it wasn't Facebook who made the Cambridge Analytica story public, for example!) or they are tracked without their consent.
There would not have been so much noise around GDPR if previously tracking would have been fully transparent and with users' consent.
Why do they need to consciously consent? They are on someone else's property. I don't ask for your consent when I record you and your conversations when you are on my property. I also don't consciously consent to the local jiffy Mart recording me when I go in to buy a candy bar.
@colomar @mike @kwnd
@poetgrant @colomar @mike @kwnd
I've seen "video surveillence" stickers on shop doors many years ago and I think they were always obligatory. And Facebook is more like someone's shop in the city centre, rather than someone's house.
Also, the network effect. You don't lose contact with your friends by buying milk in a different shop than all your friends. But you do by using a different socnet.
@poetgrant In Germany at least, you are required to put up a sign at the entrance of a building informing people about the presence of video surveillance.
That means that people make an informed decision when entering the building.
You are also required to ask for consent when recording calls to a hotline, as another example.
Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.