|
|
|
|
|
by yosefk
2982 days ago
|
|
I think grandparent's point was that the first cause you mention - reducing FB's power over users - does nothing for the users if this power instead goes to other 3rd parties, and perhaps even grows. GP points out that in a distributed social network, 3rd parties can still mine your data, you still have trouble permanently erasing information, and in fact these problems grow instead of shrink. From a user's POV, what matters is the total amount of 3rd parties over them and the leverage they have against these 3rd parties as a whole. GP's point is that shrinking FB's power by going to a distributed social network might actually increase the total power 3rd parties have over users. |
|
I'm not afraid that I do something stupid and people find out. I'm afraid that I don't do anything stupid, but facebook makes it look like I did. They have authority a distributed system could never have.
Also I'm not worried about someone who sells pruning shears could mine my data and find out that I like pruning shears. I'm worried that facebook only shows me adds of shitty pruning shears of certain companies. Who happen to be drinking buddies with facebook executives.
You can say that these are delusional things to worry about. But how do you draw the line when concentration of power is OK and when it's not?