• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Taking Back the Internet

What makes that argument hollow in the end is that Facebook is incredibly profitable, meaning that it makes far more money than it needs simply to "function".

Ya I don't think any private entity has a duty to operate at little to no profit. Kind of expect them to milk every penny they can out of their targets.

Facebook also has no ad banners; the only ads that an account holder would ever see on Facebook come in the form of posts by businesses or organizations that they have paid Facebook a special fee to promote. That fact - that the companies paid a fee to turn these particular posts into ads - is important, because it means that Facebook already has the money in hand and whether or not you see one of these posts in your own feed does not change or add to that, so there is no harm in using a tool to avoid seeing them.

Please think about that for a minute, in terms of what Facebook could charge if the ads weren't actually going to be seen. Do you think the ad revenue might drop in value? I kinda do, so whether they got money in hand up front is pretty irrelevant if the value of their ads tanks to effectively zero overnight.
 
Elsevier profit margin is 36%. Doesn't seem efficient. https://www.theguardian.com/science...at-global-science-journal-over-unethical-fees

Or there's Leibniz Open Science - worth subscribing to their mastodon feed https://mastodon.social/@leibnizopenscience MIT Open Courseware https://ocw.mit.edu/ OpenLearn https://www.open.edu/openlearn/free-courses/full-catalogue
Elsevier is one example of a more general problem. Companies compete to monopolize the market then run riot. We wouldn't have the IT or internet we have today IMHO if IBM hadn't bowed to the 1956 consent decree.

Each of those cost money to run, I wonder where they get theirs? Taxes? donations? student fees?
 
Ya I don't think any private entity has a duty to operate at little to no profit. Kind of expect them to milk every penny they can out of their targets.

Yes, in fact many have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder return. The problem is that money attracts money. Many self-made multimillionaires have said that the first million was the hardest. I see an important function of a stable government is to keep that at "reasonable" (YMMV) levels. For example I'd regard an important metric would be if the average person working a full working week can afford a roof and food on the table. That's proving to be problematic in large parts of the UK and parts(?) of the US.
And no, that's not necessarily a left wing position. Look at Otto von Bismarck's social legislation in the 1880's.
 
Please think about that for a minute, in terms of what Facebook could charge if the ads weren't actually going to be seen. Do you think the ad revenue might drop in value? I kinda do, so whether they got money in hand up front is pretty irrelevant if the value of their ads tanks to effectively zero overnight.

Sure; but it wouldn't be overnight, it would be a future problem rather than a present one, and it also would be Facebook's problem, not mine (were I a user).

But I wouldn't worry about it too much even so. The promoted posts are rent-seeking; they're extra money that Facebook only makes because the system is already there and there's no reason not to squeeze a couple more bucks out if it. If they never sold another promoted post after tonight, the company would still be incredibly profitable because of their primary business, which is collecting and tracking user and nonuser data across the internet and selling it to advertisers who use it to serve you "personalized" ads that are "relevant to your interests". Not on Facebook itself, but on all the other web pages you visit.

That's the actual point of the unfollowing tool. It may block promoted posts incidentally, but the main intention is to interfere with Facebook's data-mining - denying them accurate or precise data about your interests.
 
This lawsuit isn't about advertising though, it's about Facebook feeding you tons of interesting stuff that you simply can't not look at and therefore spend hours and hours endlessly scrolling when you could/should be doing something more productive, like feeding your children.

Of all the people I've talked to about adblockers (in a PC environment) I've only had one person go ahead and actually install one. No matter how much I tell people that they'll totally change your online experience there's always some sort of failure to understand what they are and what they do and nobody ever seems to "get around to it".

With an adblocker working, who cares if you're getting targeted advertising/ You never see it and if you want to try and minimize it, simply log out. Clear your cookies and cache and if logging back into various accounts is a hardship, then, well, tough ****.

"They" don't get your data unless you give them your data.
 
Of all the internet ad-ing I get, I'm probably least bothered by Facebook's. And I'm on it several times a day. I have actually followed through on a few. I am a little bugged by the Reels they keep trying to show me. They have mostly similar subject matter and I can't think of anything I've clicked or commented on that would bring that about. But I guess that's how the algorithm works. Clicking "Show Less of these" or "I don't want to see this" doesn't work at all.
 
This lawsuit isn't about advertising though, it's about Facebook feeding you tons of interesting stuff that you simply can't not look at and therefore spend hours and hours endlessly scrolling when you could/should be doing something more productive, like feeding your children.

Right, but Facebook's targeted-advertising data is the reason that situation exists at all. Facebook's feed isn't an arbitrary firehouse of random garbage, it's made up specifically of things that Facebook thinks you (in the direct personal sense: not "you" as in "customers" but "you" as in John Smith, 43, of Peoria, Illinois) are most likely to interact with, by "liking" or replying or sharing or following and so forth, because each one of those interactions produces a data-point that can be added to or help further refine your personalized advertising profile, which is the thing that Facebook sells as its primary product.

With an adblocker working, who cares if you're getting targeted advertising/ You never see it and if you want to try and minimize it, simply log out. Clear your cookies and cache and if logging back into various accounts is a hardship, then, well, tough ****.

"They" don't get your data unless you give them your data.

Okay - see, these two paragraphs are contradictory.

Ad-blockers are good, but they have a regrettable side-effect which is the "out of sight, out of mind" process that you describe here. You don't see the ads, so what difference does it make?

The difference is that the ads you see (or block) are the end of a chain. Facebook, after all, doesn't serve you the ads. Ad companies serve you the ads. Facebook just sells those ad companies your personal data so that they can target their ads more effectively. You can do whatever you want to avoid seeing the output, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the machine is still there - your ad blocker isn't stopping Facebook from mining and selling your personal data; they will continue to do that as long as you're using Facebook they way they want you to use it (and even, to a certain degree, whether or not you use Facebook at all or ever did). You're still giving them your data and letting them generate money from it.
 
Last edited:
Is Facebook actively tracking your movements and interests while you're logged out of it?
 
Is Facebook actively tracking your movements and interests while you're logged out of it?

Yes. If you have ever been to some other website - like a news site, or a company's product page - and seen links or widgets allowing you to "Like" a post or article, or to visit the company's Facebook page, those small links and widgets are just the visible elements of a larger bit of code that does many things, and one of those things is to ask the website to pass information about your computer along to Facebook.

This is information that any website you visit can see - your location, IP address, hardware identifiers, which OS and browser you're using, the resolution of your monitor, and so on. Because Facebook also collects the same data from any device you use to visit Facebook directly, it can and does correlate this information and use it to track your internet activity across many pages that you visit whether you're logged into Facebook or not.
 
"They" don't get your data unless you give them your data.
Alas, this is naïve and wrong. Sorry, but "they" have so many ways of getting their crusty mitts on your data that preventing them would be more than a full-time job. Practically every time you use the internet, something is gathering data about what you're doing.
 
Information should be free. What justification is there for assigning a cost to information?

I agree with this sentiment but maybe not its application. Yes, information should be free, but it shouldn't necessarily be free to ask someone else to get that information for you. If someone else wants to help you out for free, cool, but if they say "sure, I'll get you that information for a price", that seems reasonable to me. And if they make that their business they'll be incentivized to do a good job of getting the information you want.

Which his sort of what google used to be.

Something perverse has happened where google doesn't charge you a fee but instead presents you with ads. That was all good, except now they seem to present so many ads that it's made them bad at actually getting the information you were looking for, instead making you scroll through ads. That seems like a bad business decision to me. Hopefully sooner rather than later people start to shift to other options that are better at getting the information that they want, even if it involves a subscription model rather than an ad based model.

But the idea that they should just do it for free doesn't make sense. I don't think the information itself should be held back by an enforced monopoly, or at least I think that should be done less than it is now. For instance I am generally for shortening copyright periods and reforming patent law, so this is sort of in line with your "information should be free" (a book is just information), though maybe not quite as extreme as that.
 
Yes. If you have ever been to some other website - like a news site, or a company's product page - and seen links or widgets allowing you to "Like" a post or article, or to visit the company's Facebook page, those small links and widgets are just the visible elements of a larger bit of code that does many things, and one of those things is to ask the website to pass information about your computer along to Facebook.

This is information that any website you visit can see - your location, IP address, hardware identifiers, which OS and browser you're using, the resolution of your monitor, and so on. Because Facebook also collects the same data from any device you use to visit Facebook directly, it can and does correlate this information and use it to track your internet activity across many pages that you visit whether you're logged into Facebook or not.

Ah, I see. I don't use social media, outside of this place and a couple of other forums, none of which are connected to my real name and registered for using a disposable email address, not attached to my real name and using usernames that are unique to those sites. I can't say I really care about location etc ( I do have a VPN, the Proton free one) but I rarely use it.

Every documentary I've seen about people shocked about the amount of information different platforms have collected on them has revolved around information that people have actually given them.

I guess I'm not seeing how a site like Facebook could collect browser information when I'm not logged in if I took the simple step of clearing that information before logging into Facebook etc.
 
Every documentary I've seen about people shocked about the amount of information different platforms have collected on them has revolved around information that people have actually given them.

And again, that's really another facet of the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon. A Facebook profile has many optional fields that you can fill in that create an extensive story of your life - your education history, credentials, where you work and where you used to work, places you've lived, your favorite movies - just about anything you can think of. It even allows you, if you like, to choose a "hometown" distinct from the place you happen to live at present, because those are often separate things to many. People fill these in because the user-facing side of Facebook is supposed to be a social network - when people enter the high school they graduated from and their years of attendance, in their mind they've just added that information to their profile so that other people using Facebook who went to the same school at the same time can find them and "reconnect". They don't feel like they're giving that information to Facebook for Facebook to turn around and sell to advertising companies.

That conceptual disconnect is by design, and Facebook expends at least some effort to keep people feeling that way. A few years ago, encrypted chat app Signal attempted to put an extremely transparent ad campaign on Facebook using the promoted-posts system. Companies and advertisers who use it have access to the same targeting tools that external ad-server companies do, and all of these ads were designed to simply say out loud what data points were used to target a given recipient. It did not go over well and Facebook quickly banned the campaign and the account.

The ads didn't break any terms of service or do anything that any other ad campaigns don't also do, they were banned because being forthright about it would upset Facebook's users. A lot of people "kind of know", on an intellectual level, that the data they volunteer on social media can and likely is being mined and exploited by...someone; but it hits differently when you're confronted with it in such a direct and explicit way.


I guess I'm not seeing how a site like Facebook could collect browser information when I'm not logged in if I took the simple step of clearing that information before logging into Facebook etc.

It isn't something unique to Facebook. As implied earlier, whenever your computer or device visits any webpage at any time, it sends specific information about your machine to the website. I'm not talking about cached information, history, or anything you can "clear"; I'm talking about telemetry that your machine sends about its software and hardware as an integral part of the process of establishing a connection with a website. It's not anything inherently nefarious - a website needs to "know" what kind of browser you're using, what size your screen is, what plugins it's running, what kind of fonts it has available, and other such things just so the website can display its information correctly. But this data is still just data, and the more data there is and the more unique certain bits of data in the set are, the higher the chance that it could only be coming from a relatively small set of people, or even just one person; and that fact is why some websites choose to store it and keep track of it.

Whether you're logged in or not, Facebook sees this kind of data whenever you load their website. When you ARE logged in, Facebook is able to associate this data about your device with your user account. Once they've made that connection, they can use it to correlate data reports they get from the other sites you visit, even if you're logged out and have deleted any Facebook cookies from your actual machine. "Oh, someone from [particular IP address] who uses [browser] with [particular set of extensions] and a machine set to [particular time zone] just visited ESPN.com to check a game score? That data happens to match what we know about [specific Facebook user]. We can add an interest in the St. Louis Cardinals to his dataset." In a nutshell, that's how a significant part of Facebook's data collection works.

You can't stop your device from sending this kind of information at all period, but some parts of it can be spoofed by extensions or browsers with strong privacy features. Practically speaking you can still be tracked while using spoofed data as long as that data is consistent across your web activity; but at least the "you" being tracked is fictitious because the data doesn't accurately describe you.
 
Cheers Checkmite, thanks for the explanation.

I remember a few years ago we had a user on this site who was living in Thailand and concerned about being tracked and any possible government ramifications that his internet usage might trigger. There was a link posted to a "how unique is my computer" and I came out to share that same set of data with about 4000 other people...worldwide.

I/we were made aware of scripts/extensions we could install to mask that data. IIRC I installed some of those (were they browser extensions?) as an experiment but things went a little haywire so I removed them thinking I'm glad I live in a country where I don't really have to worry about that level of possible government intrusion.

I'm happy as long as they don't have me as a person, that I personally don't exist as a digital entity somewhere and if they want to track my machine, then have at 'er. The only ads I see are those ones masquerading as news items on Microsoft Start and if they're targeted then they're woefully inaccurate. Except yesterday. Yesterday MS start thought I was interested in lightbulbs and fixtures, which I was, only I hadn't searched for them online, everything was being done by phone as I was following up on an email. The Theme from Twilight Zone started playing in my head.

but, dammit, sometimes I really want to know why i should keep a teabag in my car or what finding a penny in my doorhandle really means. :D
 
You can't stop your device from sending this kind of information at all period, but some parts of it can be spoofed by extensions or browsers with strong privacy features. Practically speaking you can still be tracked while using spoofed data as long as that data is consistent across your web activity; but at least the "you" being tracked is fictitious because the data doesn't accurately describe you.

You can see that information here:

https://www.whatismybrowser.com/detect/what-http-headers-is-my-browser-sending?sort=dont-sort
 

Back
Top Bottom