[sandov]

Well, your moral principles are very different from mine. I don't feel like I (or the state) should have a say about what goes on inside of Facebook's servers, they can do whatever they want with the information they have as long as the don't use coercion (to me, freedom is the lack of coercion).

That said, I do believe that there's a practical problem, but it's us that must try to solve it, we must educate people, we must ask our friends not to post our photos or personal info on social media, etc.

[astrobe_]

> they can do whatever they want with the information they have

What if they decide to publish online your computed profile? Maybe they know you better than yourself.

> as long as the don't use coercion

Isn't influence or suggestion a kind of coercion? Why do you think they spend so much resources on profiling everyone?

> That said, I do believe that there's a practical problem, but it's us that must try to solve it, we must educate people

My country used to have over 6000 people killed on roads out of about 60M people. The state tried to "educate" people about not driving while drunk, not driving fast, using seat belts, etc. But in the end, what actually worked was more policemen on the roads.

You say freedom is the lack of coercion but you fail to realize that you are coerced into being part of FB, and your only opt-out is drastic measures like using a blocker.

FB probably has more intelligence capabilities about mere people than any past or present intelligence agency of any country ever had. That raises a lot of questions, the first of them being to make sure that they don't use it against people.

[sandov]

I'm not being coerced to use Facebook, there's not threat of physical violence involved. I choose to use the web, if some site has fb trackers I can disable cookies, I can disable JS, I can do whatever I want with my computer in order to not give them my info.

Yes, there is influence, and I would certainly prefer it to no be like that, but freedom of people to use a lousy service as fb is still freedom, and freedom is more important than my feelings.

[clort]

The state is our collective will, on a national level. People like to refer to them and us but the government is us.

[gagege]

The state is the collective will of a relatively small group of people with money and power. Most people have no influence at all. That's how it always has been. I think the only way to maximize freedom is to support small, local governments.

[sandov]

According to Max Weber, Something is "a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force'. I am not part of the state, the state is the president, the congressmen, the taxman, but not "us".