Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by eatbitseveryday 3552 days ago
More services means more data for them to exploit. Weak on privacy guarantees = whatever services they offer are heavily mined for your data.

When it comes to sales, craigslist is useful because it allows you to remain anonymous. With FB, I seem to be exposing exactly who I am, where I live, what I have for sale. In places with high crime rates, this opens me up to becoming a victim, as perps can search this information, see my name (maybe search online for more details), etc. Craigslist has even worked with police departments to set up safe areas[0] for people to exchange items. Will FB prioritize these important aspects?

I just recently saw an advertisement for their rural internet initiative, launching 3kW large-wingspan aircraft over remote areas to transmit network signals[1]. On the surface it is a useful goal - to connect more people - but ultimately, FB wants to increase its membership, and enrich its supply of data collected by people. Do we really prioritize having people send likes on FB from their shantytowns[2] instead of helping them improve their own villages -- food, sanity[3], customs, etc.?

From [2]:

> Mr. Kohli, 17, said he spends about four hours a day on the Internet and uses an Express Wi-Fi plan to supplement his Airtel data plan.

> Facebook has no desire to enter directly into the Internet service business.

> An important cog in the system is the merchant in each village that sells the service. Facebook and AirJaldi decided that there should be just one authorized seller per village to give that person a strong incentive to sell as many subscriptions as possible.

[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/03/27/395586863/police-departments-o...

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-31/facebook-t...

[2] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/facebook-strives-to...

[3] http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_madiath_better_toilets_better_l...

3 comments

If you are a seller of something, there is some upside to knowing who the buyer is. Seems less likely you'll just get held up at gunpoint if you have a link to their FB profile you could hand the police.
Okay, but you can already avoid this by doing the exchange in a police precinct - which you probably ought to do anyways, even with a Facebook account attached.
> link to their FB profile you could hand the police

Is this useful to police, when profiles can be forged?

Personally, when I sell something I don't want people to learn who I am. I'd rather just sell it and remain anonymous. There is more concern about the legality of a good from the buyer's perspective, not the seller.

Then you'll simply use Craigslist or a different platform for those items. There are tons more selling scenarios in my view where the non-anonymity is a comfort, not a hinderance.
They could (theoretically) request the IP addresses of the scam user. A small-scale local thief may well be using their computer without something like Tor.
>With FB, I seem to be exposing exactly who I am, where I live, what I have for sale.

Similar to that Vernor Vinge story about true names.

>Do we really prioritize having people send likes on FB from their shantytowns[1] instead of helping them improve their own villages -- food, sanity[2], customs, etc.?

Who is "we"? There are many paths to "doing good". Of course FB will pick something that is mutually beneficial to the people and the company.