> Does Facebook really have a unique amount of data? Google also knows a lot about people through billions of searches a day. Apple can learn a lot through people's iDevices, and Google (again) or Samsung can do the same with Android.
In amount it's hard to tell. Google and other big players of surveillance capitalism also collect what they can. But it does not really make it any better to have an oligopoly which has a similar huge amount of knowledge about a huge amount of the population.
> At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered.
Maybe not until Zuckerberg is president of the USA ;). Also governments, esp. those who already run their own massive mass surveillance programs will use that privately collected data (at least in the long run if they do not do so already).
> The way I see it, Facebook and other social media occupy much the same position as phone companies used to, both in terms of how they facilitate interaction …
Not remotely. A far as I know they did not influence on a personal level with whom you interact, when that interaction takes place and surely not the topic of the interaction. Also Facebook today is a media company which does much more than providing infrastructure for communication of individuals.
> The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else.
You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of?
> You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of?
Nice assumption of doing evil there. I'm saying someone else would fill Facebook's role whether it's evil or not. Do you disagree? Do you not see the others waiting in the wings, from direct clones to Twitter and Google and Amazon? Do you deny that they lack mostly the ability to collect as much information, but have the same will? Brin and Page would be glad to step into Facebook's shoes, or Bezos, or Thiel. How is that better?
Again, whether it's evil or not, this kind of information gathering will continue and accelerate. Personifying it as Facebook or Zuckerberg just makes privacy a big game of Whack-a-Mole. Bills of attainder are both immoral and ineffectual. We need to address the what, not the who. The only lame excuse here is failing to work toward a viable long-term solution because it's easier (or more fun?) to demonize.
> I'm saying someone else would fill Facebook's role whether it's evil or not. Do you disagree?
History says you're right.
There were many similar sites before Facebook existed, including Friendster and Google's Orkut. You might also count MySpace.
There have been a few attempts to replace Facebook, the most obvious one being Google Plus.
Typically, due to power law effects, technologies end up with a dominant supplier: there's only one Amazon, one Google, one Wikipedia, etc.
Given that Google is already dominant in search, email, online video (YouTube) and mobile phones, there's a case for defending Facebook as the lesser evil...
In amount it's hard to tell. Google and other big players of surveillance capitalism also collect what they can. But it does not really make it any better to have an oligopoly which has a similar huge amount of knowledge about a huge amount of the population.
> At least Facebook doesn't have an army, or paramilitaries like DHS or just about any sheriff's department I've ever encountered.
Maybe not until Zuckerberg is president of the USA ;). Also governments, esp. those who already run their own massive mass surveillance programs will use that privately collected data (at least in the long run if they do not do so already).
> The way I see it, Facebook and other social media occupy much the same position as phone companies used to, both in terms of how they facilitate interaction …
Not remotely. A far as I know they did not influence on a personal level with whom you interact, when that interaction takes place and surely not the topic of the interaction. Also Facebook today is a media company which does much more than providing infrastructure for communication of individuals.
> The thing is, if it wasn't Facebook it would be someone else.
You are aware that's probably the most lame excuse to do evil one can think of?