Hacker News Reader

How can you trust facebook? How a non net-neutral Internet is good for Zambia?

It's just clever marketing from facebook. Nothing else. Creating news costumers forced to use faceboook to keep his numbers high and growing.

Its shady privacy policy and unethical experiments (and don't forget the NSA collaboration) makes of Facebook one of the worst corporations out there.

I invite you to close your account.

You're probably right, I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt, they have been trying very hard the past few years to recreate their image and implement privacy controls.

I saw recently one person talking about when you delete your Facebook account it's a true delete rather than a soft-delete, but I'm not sure how true that is, stuff like that goes a long way and matters to me.

> I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt

You can't give them that benefit because their company culture was founded on "They trust me — dumb fucks" [0]

[0] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

This has got nothing to do with net-neutrality. Say my workplace internet has blocked porn, does that mean my workplace internet is non net-neutral and harmful ? On the contrary it is more productive.

When you are are getting something for free, someone else is spending money for you and clearly getting something for free is better that getting nothing.

In case of Comcast etc. this is not the case because these service providers use public land and create monopolies with the help of government.

A workplace is not a regulated Internet Service Provider.

Another word for "getting something for free" is price-dumping. History has many examples of this tactic being used to destroy competitors.

If someone wants to "sponsor" free traffic, they should be required to provide some percentage of that traffic for accessing the open internet, i.e. they cannot pay to remove choices from consumers.

Would it be ok to air-drop Go Language books in one country and Swift Language books in another country? Telecommunication and culture industries are regulated for good reasons.

Precisely Internet.org is also not regulated internet service provider. Price-dumping is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

Internet.org has contracts with regulated national telcos. The customers of those telcos do not have employment agreements with Internet.org's founding companies, i.e. they are not in a workplace relationship.

"They trust me — dumb fucks" - Mark Zuckerberg

While someone will come along and tell me he's changed so much since this comment and it's irrelevant at this point in time I still think it's foolish to place any trust in a company that was pretty much founded on this concept.

Interesting quote, I had to look up its validity. http://gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-use...

I live happily the last couple of years without a facebook account and didn't stop from anything.

ps. I use my twitter handler for disqus and I have a G-account which I don't use much.

Same with me, I use Twitter login whenever possible, Google if no other option, Facebook login never or if absolutely forced to.

Twitter has been great, they focused on doing one thing really well.

I risk playing into the annoying stereotype (I quit Facebook and I can't stop telling everyone about it), I have felt an increased pull back to the service lately.

Not because I have any renewed interest in the site itself, but because more and more websites and apps using Facebook login as their primary registration/login mechanism (with some sites eschewing "register via email" completely).

A more egregious example is Stellar distributing free "money" to Facebook users. And not just any Facebook users, but Facebook users who are deemed sufficiently active, given some threshold on friend count or activity.

Giving Facebook reign over some official-sounding Internet.org portal is yet another attempt to entrench Facebook as a gatekeeper.

The utility of Facebook for consumers is no longer using the Facebook service itself -- which at its core was looking at friends' photos (Instagram & Snapchat do it better), reading status updates (Twitter is arguably better), checking into places (who cares), and viral casual games (mobile does it better) -- but rather using it as an identity service.

I'm uncomfortable with Facebook playing the role of the de facto online identity verification service, but that's where we're at.

I believe you can. This is how to do it retroactively http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-adjust-app-and-web-site-pe...

I think there is an option for the same kind of control when approving an app as well (on the web at least)

Ah, nice. Those have definitely been improved since the last time I made a site that used Facebook login.

2 years ago it use to be a data-miners paradise, you could grab almost all users data plus all data that their friends shared with only friends, it seems like they've updated these privacy permissions as well.

Apps do still have access to photos that I'm tagged in that I've got hidden as best as I can tell is possible, not even Google has access to that information.

> I wish they would allow us to restrict what information was given to apps, whether or not the apps "required" it. I never login with Facebook but sometimes check the permissions it asks for, all friends, all info, etc are the norm. I don't want any service to have access to my list of friends, I just don't trust them not to misuse the data or to have the data stolen.

In the new API version announced at F8 this year (which will be required for all apps as of next summer) users can choose upon authorizing an app which permissions to provide, and friends' data is no longer included as it was before.

Google has a browser called Canary and this http://rt.com/usa/161192-google-facebook-microsoft-nsa-gag/ They have a new language called Dart -- Google's first ever reference to violence. They're nice people, but they've gotten a bit anxiety causing, not like they used to be (blame it on being a large company I guess, but don't forget to think).

> Google's first ever reference to violence.

This is a stretch. The name "dart" comes from the other meaning of the word, as in "an act of running somewhere suddenly and rapidly." Source: I work on languages at Google.

Canary is just the name for their nightly release channel, it's been named that for several years. Most people should not use Canary because it's mainly for finding bugs before they get sent to the Dev channel.

I don't really associate Dart with violence when I hear the word, haven't even consider it until you mentioned it just now. Dart to me (other than just a random short word that was unused and sounds decent) means precision and fast moving.

While Google did have gag orders, they did a lot to actually notify users, there were popups that would only appear when users accounts were accessed by someone with unusual permissions, they were the first to provide a transparency report with the numbers of law-enforcement requests (had to use ranges to stay legal but still provide the information). As soon as they found out the NSA was tapping their datacenter fiber connections they started encrypting the traffic and had a press release about it soon after.

Yeah, a company as large and powerful as Google is going to have all intelligence agencies pressuring them for information constantly, the worst thing they could do would be being completely silent about it and deny everything, but they haven't done that.

They denied some stuff: https://news.yahoo.com/googles-ftp-nsa-really-better-direct-...

rubber stamp fisa kangaroo court meets google ftp, you could call that direct access.