WhatsApp co-founder tells everyone to delete Facebook(theverge.com)
theverge.com
WhatsApp co-founder tells everyone to delete Facebook
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17145200/brian-acton-delete-facebook-whatsapp
628 comments
So I want to cut off an argument at the pass here. Specifically: "Everyone knows Facebook already gathers all of your data."
We, as people here both on HN and people in the tech world take for granted the fact that we both know and understand how our systems work (mostly). We know that companies package and sell our data, that if something is 'free' the real subscription fee is what they collect on us during each use. But there is a significant population that simply doesn't know, think it's too much of a 'conspiracy theory' or don't care.
My parents, as much as I love them, are absolutely hair-tearingly bad at anything related to computers. They've had issues with scammers and Microsoft phoning them up so that they can upgrade their computer's ram. When I tell them about what kind of things Facebook does, they don't understand. They don't get why their data is so valuable ('well so what they get my phone number not like it affects me') and a lot of the time they have trouble understanding what they actually do.
Breaking stories like this is not necessarily surprising no, not to us. But it raises awareness and makes people wonder what companies actually are doing with their data. I doubt it'll result in the bubble that is Facebook finally popping but opportunities like this are always great times to pull aside your family and let them know why things like this matter. And in this current environment people are hyper-aware of things like this possibly more than ever before.
So I don't think the argument should be based around normalizing this sort of behavior by Facebook and other companies but rather revealing it to those that might not be aware.
We, as people here both on HN and people in the tech world take for granted the fact that we both know and understand how our systems work (mostly). We know that companies package and sell our data, that if something is 'free' the real subscription fee is what they collect on us during each use. But there is a significant population that simply doesn't know, think it's too much of a 'conspiracy theory' or don't care.
My parents, as much as I love them, are absolutely hair-tearingly bad at anything related to computers. They've had issues with scammers and Microsoft phoning them up so that they can upgrade their computer's ram. When I tell them about what kind of things Facebook does, they don't understand. They don't get why their data is so valuable ('well so what they get my phone number not like it affects me') and a lot of the time they have trouble understanding what they actually do.
Breaking stories like this is not necessarily surprising no, not to us. But it raises awareness and makes people wonder what companies actually are doing with their data. I doubt it'll result in the bubble that is Facebook finally popping but opportunities like this are always great times to pull aside your family and let them know why things like this matter. And in this current environment people are hyper-aware of things like this possibly more than ever before.
So I don't think the argument should be based around normalizing this sort of behavior by Facebook and other companies but rather revealing it to those that might not be aware.
It's quite ironic that this is the man who sold WhatsApp and its enormous userbase to facebook, creating a total lock in to the facebook ecosystem for many who do not even use facebook. He would have known what kind of a company facebook is, so I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues. Anyway, I am still glad he's getting behind the #deletefacebook movement.
The big problem with the whole post-privacy thing is in my opinion, that it is asymetrical.
I mean, if everybody (could) know everything about everybody else, ok, strange, but fine. But the big powerful players know much more about the private lives of the average citiciens(or also politican), than the Gestapo and KGB could ever dream of, but we know not so much about them. This is very dangerous.
As it gives the people with all that (potential dark) information much power. Especialy when there are so many ridiculous laws around, disconnected from reality, like that Marihuana is still mostly illegal. And while for most it would not matter, but someone working in health sector for example, can get in serious trouble(at least in germany), if he would found guilty of smoking sometimes. This makes people vulnerable to blackmailing etc.
I can only hope, that there are also enough righteous people, like Snowden, involved, to blow the whistle, when things get overhand. But I believe there is something fundamentaly wrong, with the current direction.
I mean, if everybody (could) know everything about everybody else, ok, strange, but fine. But the big powerful players know much more about the private lives of the average citiciens(or also politican), than the Gestapo and KGB could ever dream of, but we know not so much about them. This is very dangerous.
As it gives the people with all that (potential dark) information much power. Especialy when there are so many ridiculous laws around, disconnected from reality, like that Marihuana is still mostly illegal. And while for most it would not matter, but someone working in health sector for example, can get in serious trouble(at least in germany), if he would found guilty of smoking sometimes. This makes people vulnerable to blackmailing etc.
I can only hope, that there are also enough righteous people, like Snowden, involved, to blow the whistle, when things get overhand. But I believe there is something fundamentaly wrong, with the current direction.
All of this Facebook hubub and broad public outcry is really all owed to the election of Trump. If Trump handnt leveraged CA, we’d still all be happy and fat on out individual bliss boxes – patting ourselves on the back – because our side [a la Obama] was smart enough to use this technology to our advantage.
Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regulation.
The greater public is OK with this technology. They’re Ok with sweeping data collection (Snowden Files). They’re OK with mining personal data (Facebook, Google, etc). Thy’re OK with 1984, so long as it’s their sides version of 1984.
It takes a Trump for your side to realize how shitty things got while you were enamored with charisma on your bliss box.
Edit: typing on my phone. Fixing grammar.
Now when the enemy has (and use) the same technology, we’re forced to cry foul. Demand oversight. Demand regulation.
The greater public is OK with this technology. They’re Ok with sweeping data collection (Snowden Files). They’re OK with mining personal data (Facebook, Google, etc). Thy’re OK with 1984, so long as it’s their sides version of 1984.
It takes a Trump for your side to realize how shitty things got while you were enamored with charisma on your bliss box.
Edit: typing on my phone. Fixing grammar.
Brian Acton's post[0] about the Signal Foundation[1] makes it sound like they could play in the same space as Facebook:
> Of course, this is just the beginning. There is a lot of work to be done to make our dream a reality and we will continually be asking our peers, our community, and ourselves if there are more effective ways to serve the public good. In the immediate future we are focused on adding to our talented-but-small team and improving Signal Messenger. Our long-term vision is for the Signal Foundation to provide multiple offerings that align with our core mission. That will come in time.
The tagline on the foundations splash page, To develop open source privacy technology that protects free expression sounds like it could mean a facebook type thingamajig, since what is FB but providing free expression to the masses?
[0]: https://signal.org/blog/signal-foundation/ [1]: https://signalfoundation.org/
> Of course, this is just the beginning. There is a lot of work to be done to make our dream a reality and we will continually be asking our peers, our community, and ourselves if there are more effective ways to serve the public good. In the immediate future we are focused on adding to our talented-but-small team and improving Signal Messenger. Our long-term vision is for the Signal Foundation to provide multiple offerings that align with our core mission. That will come in time.
The tagline on the foundations splash page, To develop open source privacy technology that protects free expression sounds like it could mean a facebook type thingamajig, since what is FB but providing free expression to the masses?
[0]: https://signal.org/blog/signal-foundation/ [1]: https://signalfoundation.org/
I find it very hypocritical of all these people who already have vested their shares in Facebook coming out and criticizing the company.
As someone else mentioned on this thread, this is the guy who contributed to the concentration of all things social into Facebook by selling Whatsapp.
I'm pretty sure most people are not fond of Facebook basically monopolizing people's private data and monetizing, but you don't get to criticize if you are the one who contributed to creating it, no matter how detached you are from the company anymore. And if you really cared about this, why didn't you just come out and say it before all this?
I see this with the recent trend of all these "former early Facebook employees" who obviously got to where they are now by working for Facebook and made tons of money by exploiting users. Now that their shares have all vested, they criticize Facebook about how they're so "unethical", etc.
If you really care about user privacy, just shut up and start your own company and see if you can fix it from scratch, instead of using the fame you gained by working for the company you're criticizing.
It's hypocrisy at worst.
As someone else mentioned on this thread, this is the guy who contributed to the concentration of all things social into Facebook by selling Whatsapp.
I'm pretty sure most people are not fond of Facebook basically monopolizing people's private data and monetizing, but you don't get to criticize if you are the one who contributed to creating it, no matter how detached you are from the company anymore. And if you really cared about this, why didn't you just come out and say it before all this?
I see this with the recent trend of all these "former early Facebook employees" who obviously got to where they are now by working for Facebook and made tons of money by exploiting users. Now that their shares have all vested, they criticize Facebook about how they're so "unethical", etc.
If you really care about user privacy, just shut up and start your own company and see if you can fix it from scratch, instead of using the fame you gained by working for the company you're criticizing.
It's hypocrisy at worst.
Crossposting what I said on Twitter:
> My contrarian impulse is that I want y'all to stop dunking on Acton for this tweet. (Context: One of the WhatsApp cofounders who sold to Facebook and made lots of money.) People's views change over time and it can take years for a conviction to form and then crystalize.
> It's very possible that Acton is burning bridges with that tweet. Don't assume that he loses nothing by speaking up now.
> My contrarian impulse is that I want y'all to stop dunking on Acton for this tweet. (Context: One of the WhatsApp cofounders who sold to Facebook and made lots of money.) People's views change over time and it can take years for a conviction to form and then crystalize.
> It's very possible that Acton is burning bridges with that tweet. Don't assume that he loses nothing by speaking up now.
If we use Twitter to announce that people should #deletefacebook, what social network do we use in the event that it becomes necessary to #deletetwitter?
I wonder if the Americans freaking out about this whole foreign influence thing have any idea what their nation has done to other countries' (both democracies and otherwise). What's happened here is a complete joke in comparison, and everyone is losing their head. Do people have any idea what the modern world has been like?
Random comment but I see so many people talking about regulation. Why do we want to hold the wolf by the ears here, continuing to use a service that doesn’t respect us while trying to force them to act like they do, when instead we could be advocating the use of user friendly services that truly respect our freedom? Why if Facebook has proven to be focused on things we don’t want (deep profiling), would you think any regulation (from politicians who are seemingly all bought by campaign donations) would somehow redeem Facebook?
For those advocating regulation, why do you advocate that over the development of services that genuinely respect user freedom?
Thanks all who comment thoughtfully.
For those advocating regulation, why do you advocate that over the development of services that genuinely respect user freedom?
Thanks all who comment thoughtfully.
My extended family is "well distributed", living in three different countries around the world.
Facebook has been an essential tool for keeping in touch and keeping track.
What do I tell them all to use instead? Migrating to anything else, even if we all agreed, would be a huge pain.
Facebook has been an essential tool for keeping in touch and keeping track.
What do I tell them all to use instead? Migrating to anything else, even if we all agreed, would be a huge pain.
This will get downvoted but whatever. I predicted all of this a decade ago and I refused to be part of it. All my friends laughed at me and said I was crazy.
Maybe I am but I don't do all that social media shit because if you don't know where they are making money, they are making it off of you.
And that's creepy. I'm willing to pay for value, but I'm not on board with them making money by looking over my shoulder. It's not about me doing something illegal, I don't do that, I'm fine, it's just creepy.
That social media stuff is like dopamine, feels good, but is not good for you.
Maybe I am but I don't do all that social media shit because if you don't know where they are making money, they are making it off of you.
And that's creepy. I'm willing to pay for value, but I'm not on board with them making money by looking over my shoulder. It's not about me doing something illegal, I don't do that, I'm fine, it's just creepy.
That social media stuff is like dopamine, feels good, but is not good for you.
I'll take it but I'm still somewhat confused about how sudden this pushback against facebook has been.
What did people think they did before now...
What did people think they did before now...
With the way they create shadow profiles for non-users, I'm a strong believer that the opportunity with facebook is to feed them as much bad data as possible and let them deal with filtering it out.
This is probably the most pathetic PR move we've seen this year so far.
Acton sold off his userbase to Facebook in 2014, with full knowledge of the Snowden revelations of 2013 where we learned about Facebook's involvement in PRISM.
Acton sold off his userbase to Facebook in 2014, with full knowledge of the Snowden revelations of 2013 where we learned about Facebook's involvement in PRISM.
[deleted]
Alert: this comment may be seen as self serving.
I work on an app that has been gaining popularity precisely because it's a way to keep in touch with family and friends with no social media aspect (called Marco Polo, a video walkie talkie). I'm curious if there is going to be enough of a backlash to return to more organic face to face (and actually interactive) communication versus broadcast mode and pretending to be something that will seem impressive. That seems to be true of our users anyway.
I work on an app that has been gaining popularity precisely because it's a way to keep in touch with family and friends with no social media aspect (called Marco Polo, a video walkie talkie). I'm curious if there is going to be enough of a backlash to return to more organic face to face (and actually interactive) communication versus broadcast mode and pretending to be something that will seem impressive. That seems to be true of our users anyway.
I would be very curious to learn what sort of non-disparagement clauses existed in the Whatsapp/Facebook purchase contract. And how exactly they were worded.
The main thing I don't get from this approach is the idea that deleting Facebook somehow frees you from this level of data mining.
In reality, it's well-known (not just by techies, but everyone) that when you "delete" Facebook, you're only really deactivating that account. Your data has already been mined, your data has already been sold and moved onto another server, and even if Facebook wanted to get rid of you, the Channel 4/Guardian expose has illustrated that data has been sold. The damage has already been done.
Instead of trying to get people to leave, there should be pressure on sanctions from affected governments. The only way to stop this level of data misuse is to ensure that Facebook is fined adequately. Instead of trying to crash the stock price, fine them $10k for every user breach, to the tune of several billion.
My biggest worry from this scandal is that the anger will die down, and the world will be told that you can get away with this level of data breach. Equifax have largely got away with their breach, but if Facebook and CA can get away with outright giving data away for profit then all we'll see is that the line hasn't been crossed yet.
In reality, it's well-known (not just by techies, but everyone) that when you "delete" Facebook, you're only really deactivating that account. Your data has already been mined, your data has already been sold and moved onto another server, and even if Facebook wanted to get rid of you, the Channel 4/Guardian expose has illustrated that data has been sold. The damage has already been done.
Instead of trying to get people to leave, there should be pressure on sanctions from affected governments. The only way to stop this level of data misuse is to ensure that Facebook is fined adequately. Instead of trying to crash the stock price, fine them $10k for every user breach, to the tune of several billion.
My biggest worry from this scandal is that the anger will die down, and the world will be told that you can get away with this level of data breach. Equifax have largely got away with their breach, but if Facebook and CA can get away with outright giving data away for profit then all we'll see is that the line hasn't been crossed yet.
I guess maybe it is time to re-evaluate Web 2.0? User-generated content was supposed to be empowering.
But we have ignored the powerful amplifying effects of positive feedback and "echo chambers" artificially induced by such "customised news".
Maybe it is a bad idea to present customised news, what we need are diverse views. Maybe it is a bad idea to tack on voting systems and like buttons with every comment and tweet.
But we have ignored the powerful amplifying effects of positive feedback and "echo chambers" artificially induced by such "customised news".
Maybe it is a bad idea to present customised news, what we need are diverse views. Maybe it is a bad idea to tack on voting systems and like buttons with every comment and tweet.
Instead of requiring Facebook and google to improve their ways, if we all started using ad-blockers more aggressively, setting up things like pihole for our family members and friends, wouldn't this solve the problem since companies won't have any incentive of collecting the data? It seems to me to be a much better idea that expecting multi-billion corporations to act against their interests.
Delete Facebook? Then what about WhatsApp? Isn't it owned by FB now ;)
I quite remember the day when my name appeared on the comments section of a website I visited (through facebook widget I believe). I freaked out. But when I discussed about this with my friends back then almost every one seemed to have a cavalier attitude towards this(meaning they were completely fine with it). I wouldn't be surprised if my friends still have the same attitude.
People are okay with sharing their information online if it provides them convenience. Facebook provides them with the convenience of staying in touch with people. This combined with "I have nothing to hide anyway" & "so what if?" thought processes and monetary benefits on corporate side seems to have led to this huge data bank that is Facebook today.
I am really glad people are talking more about this. Never too late. People need to completely understand their actions online have consequences.d
People are okay with sharing their information online if it provides them convenience. Facebook provides them with the convenience of staying in touch with people. This combined with "I have nothing to hide anyway" & "so what if?" thought processes and monetary benefits on corporate side seems to have led to this huge data bank that is Facebook today.
I am really glad people are talking more about this. Never too late. People need to completely understand their actions online have consequences.d
Will deleting Facebook actually remove your data though?
I’ve deleted mine a few times and then inevitably have had to use OAuth for some random site I’d auth’d to and lo-and-behold it works and all my data is back. Last time I went through that flow was maybe a year ago.
I always assumed they did some sort of paranoid delete or “anonymized” the data.
I’ve deleted mine a few times and then inevitably have had to use OAuth for some random site I’d auth’d to and lo-and-behold it works and all my data is back. Last time I went through that flow was maybe a year ago.
I always assumed they did some sort of paranoid delete or “anonymized” the data.
Smart tactic since Facebook is on fire and Whatsapp is directly pulled into discussions concerning privacy and whatnot.
Curious if he can dish out some facts to backup that tweet or it's just a "convenient" time to shed some light over your new product which is basically another..Whatsapp
Curious if he can dish out some facts to backup that tweet or it's just a "convenient" time to shed some light over your new product which is basically another..Whatsapp
We are in the connected world. News can be generated by anyone and travel very very fast. That's the reality. In the fast you have to talk to people knowing what they think, now you can do it quickly and at massive scale. We will have more and more information out there anyway, regardless how many researchers working on cyber security and other problems. The only way to go back is to unplug electricity grid? Really? There is nothing wrong with Facebook. And that's how technology can empower people to do both good and bad things. Yes, US people are not happy with the election, journalists now have a revenge, but blaming technology? really?
I just tried to delete the Facebook app on my Samsung Galaxy S8 and it looks like that's impossible. It's so embedded in the OS that it cannot be deleted, but only disabled.
For several years, I've been pontificating the somewhat abstract idea that a software app will one day hack the human psyche on a massive scale. And by "hack", I mean to do us harm by tapping into the same pleasure mechanisms as addictive drugs. It never occurred to me until today that perhaps Facebook is this app.
In May, once GDPR becomes mandatory, we'll all be able to issue data requests to the likes of Facebook and Cambridge Analyitica etc, to find out just what they know about us. The requests are free, so with social media, you could almost mount a denial of service attack against a business if enough people make a request!
Regulations should have sprouted in Obama years, but the admin and tech execs were too buddy buddy and no way Trump promotes this because it makes him look like he is accepting Russia interfered and it's not politically expedient for him to do so.
Same thing with Harvey Weinstein and all the metoo that was known by everyone. I mean I'm happy with all of this coming out, but why now? How is it so coordinated? Usually these guys pay journalists for fluff pr counter views or to shut down stories. Weinstein did.
Is this Data just a metoo thing? Is google next?