@koherecoWatchdog That could be concerning, can you give an example of where

1) facebook gathered the information about someone being gay without that person intentionally providing that information on their own and...

2) Where facebook provided that information to a foreign government without permission from the individual such that the government was able to prosecute the individual for their sexual orientation.

So far I only heard that they have access to the information and could maybe might provide it in that way.. have they? do they? If so ill be right there with you complaining.. if they havent and its just "well they might do that", then its not going to be anywhere on my radar.

@freemo did you read the article? The collection isn't even limited to ppl disclosing it. Facebook algorithms determine if someone is gay based on their behavior. (2) is mostly irrelevant. The mere collection of data is a threat. FB can sell it if they want (they've been caught lying about what they sell, so we can't rely on admission of what they sell).

@freemo And in the absence of a data sale, FB's data is still vulnerable to insiders who leak the data, and outside hackers. A gov could even hire FB to advertise a trap to gay ppl in Afganastan, for example.

@koherecoWatchdog They could, but there is no evidence that has ever happened. Doesnt mean it hasnt of course.. but without evidence its not something im going to be concerned about other than to tell people, dont use facebook if you arent comfortable with them having data on you, if you dont mind, feel free to use them.

@freemo Infosec actions isn't limited to history. We don't leave the keys in our car on the basis that our car hasn't been stolen. Infosec is about probabilities for /future/ events. It's a recipe for disaster to only control for past events.

@koherecoWatchdog

Yes I read it

as I see it

1) The information gathered was information they intentionally provided (about their behaviors and discussions) knowing that FB collects such data. The fact that FB may try to make inferences off of it is not a crime in my eyes

2) what they do with that data matters, in most cases it is within the limts of what they say they will do with it, so again not a crime. There have been instances like cambridge analytica where there was a breach and that puts them under scrutinity, rightfully so, but that is as far as my concern goes.

The solution is obvious and is exactly what I did, dont provide FB with information you dont want them to use within the boundaries of how they said they will use it, and I dont. You are in control if you dont like your data being in their hands, dont use them, if you dont mind, then use them.

@freemo (1) is hope that lawful=ethical, but actually ethics is so much bigger than law. "what they do with that data matters" <= not only that. "it is within the limts of what they say they will do with it" <= it's not limited by what they say. 1st of all, they've been caught lying. Also, disclosure is not within FB's control (exfiltration, and a gov can set a trap by pushing ads)

@koherecoWatchdog

Not hope at all, its about innocent until proven guilty. I treat people according to what they did, not according to what they could do.

Mitigating the concern that they could do it however isnt invalid, but it isnt an excuse to treat a company as if they did do such a crime, it is an excuse however to limit the powers of governments so they cant commit such an action.

for me the bigger issue here is when and if big tech is exposed directly cooperating with the government or others to this end and against the promises they make to their members.

The what if is worth thinking about not in terms of "lets boycott them just in case" but more so in terms of "you probably shouldnt be trusting your government and should be pushing for smaller governement"..

To me this fear is an argument for a more libertarian/republican approach (I am against a lot of republican ideas btw) of minimal government. It should be a push for people to want to significantly abolish huge portion of their national government and the taxes that support it.

It is not an argument against big tech for the sake of them being big tech or for doing analytics. Particularly if they have no been exposed in such schemes directly

@freemo "I treat people according to what they did" <= Facebook has been caught in lies. Of course, this isn't good for their reputation and trust.

@koherecoWatchdog

you will have to be specific about what lies if you really want to get into a "how much do you trust Facebook" discussion.

I will tell you I dont entirely trust them, but then again they arent the worst in my mind either, there are worse. At least in terms of going against what they say they will do (I dont always agree with what they say they will do).

What trust i have lost for them though, and this is important, is not due to them being a big company or employing big data... its because they have behaved in ways that is contrary to their promises at times, and that looses some degree of trust, but again, they could have done worse.

@freemo "dont provide FB with information" <= bingo. Ppl shouldn't be feeding Facebook. This is the answer right there. Not necessarily the whole answer though, as they've been caught in lies.

@koherecoWatchdog Well I wouldnt say they shouldnt be feeding facebook exactly (though I dont disagree)...

I would just say dont feed facebook if you dont trust facebook with what they can know from what you feed.

I personally have 0 fear of what they can do with what they can learn about me right now, so i dont mind using them. I can understand if others have more to fear (for example someone who is gay in africa, its a perfectly legitimate decision for them to make out of that fear)...

that said, with the new liberal govt that seems to have become somewhat radicalized in america (I'm seeing arrests and exagerations about events I dont like) it may soon become very dangerous to be anti-democrat (i am both anti-liberal and anti-conservative), and my activities on FB may, should things get much worse, be used against me. So while I have nothing to fear just yet, it is very possible that may change soon and my decision to share as much as I did with FB could come back to bite me.

That said im really no safer on here with a public feed either. I can guarantee you the government is scraping data from those networks that dont scrape it for you. I have no doubt 99% of the diverse is archived on a govt server and being analyzed just like any other data. so being on here isnt likely to help you too much either, at least not in terms of the words you post. At best it might just ensure some of your private and encrypted communications are a bit more secure, presuming your platform encrypted them at all.

@freemo "I can guarantee you the government is scraping data" <= data scrapes don't capture what you clicked on.

@koherecoWatchdog No it doesnt, and i did try to cover that by saying it would give less data than Fb might have... but as far as what **i** personally have to worry about (which is what i say, i dont really click on anything that doesnt reflect what i say as im very public) that is a non issue for me personally..

@freemo "That said im really no safer on here with a public feed either." <= you are. The clicks, mouse hovering, scrolling and mouse movement are not being collected by mastodon servers or by outsiders

@freemo #Mastodon nodes aren't even collecting your phone number, which Facebook requires.

@koherecoWatchdog being able to attach FB to my identity is a valid concern I'd say, probably your best argument so far that effects me personally.

I have also always said it was one of my biggest concerns with FB, their inability to allow me to be anonymous.

@koherecoWatchdog I have no issue with FB having that information, I dont see it as a threat to my safety beyond what i already type publicly

@freemo "non issue for me personally" The article is about a threat to Facebook-using gays living in the ~76 or so countries where gays are persecuted. That's not you, but I hope you don't just advocate for yourself.

@freemo "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." --Desmond Tutu

@koherecoWatchdog Its not a situation of injustice yet, it is a situation of potential injustice that has no occured, you are trying to mitigate the risk that it could occur... thats not an injustice, though as I said its a fine risk to try to mitigate against all the same, and i already expressed how and why that should be done (take away government oversight/power, get off the platforms you dont like the risk/reward on)

@koherecoWatchdog I dont..

1) they havent used that data to report anyone in this 76 countries we know about, so I have nothing to protest against directly.

2) in the off chance they could secretly be sharing it I would say its fine to encourage the gays in those country not tuse FB, its a precaution I would certainly understand. But its very different than me actively trying to boycott Fb from a crim they could commit but have not, and which can be protected against by people in that country not using it just in case they do, if they want (up to them what their risk tolerance is)

The bigger for me, as I said, isnt FB but its seeking reform from governments to try to reduce the power of governments in the first place, including the governments in those 76 countries.

@freemo the data collection is a threat, regardless of whether Facebook decides to sell it, or whether an insider goes rogue, or a gov infiltrates, or a gov hires FB to run an ad that traps gays (which doesn't even require FB to sell the data). E.g. the Saudi Arabians can advertise a product/svc to gays in that country & you wouldn't know.

@freemo the research shows that gay users are *astonished* to find that #Facebook determines they are gay, and obviously doesn't tell them. Of course it's an injustice to surreptitiously tag ppl with something that can get lead to extreme harm

@koherecoWatchdog

If gay users are astonished to learn somethign that should be obvious and which they state in their TOS indirectly (that they will analyze data to make inferences).. .thats kind of on them.. What that means is they need to be educated more on what data analysis can and will do.

I am all for making an effort to let more gays know that FB and any other company with access to data can and will infer their sexual orientation from their data.

But them being ignorant is no excuse or indication of injustice, thats on them for not knowing that which is obvious and expected of any company with data.

It also isnt harmful, it can be used in harmful ways, but the inference itself, in and of itself, is not harmful. If and when it is showed to be used to be harmful then those harms can and should be discussed (and there are even some minor examples of that which can be valid no doubt, I can think of a few)

@freemo "But them being ignorant is no excuse or indication of injustice" <= the ignorance is the injustice. This is why Senator Brown is pushing a law to stop FB from hiding evil shit in fine print.

@koherecoWatchdog I would disagree, it isnt "hidden in the fine print".. I already knew they used data in this and many other ways from the existing wording of their ToS, in fact I'd assume it is the case for any company that doesnt explicitly state they dont.

to me it takes an astonishing level of ignorance to think otherwise.

@freemo you're unable to step outside yourself to see the problem. When a large portion of users are astonished by what they learn Facebook collects on them, it proves that there is not a "meeting of the minds".. it demonstrates a large scale failure of FB to inform users.

@koherecoWatchdog

No, I dont usually buy the "masses" sort of arguments.

When a large portion of users are astonished to learn what facebook collects ont hem that symbolizes one thing to me... that a large number of users (and people in general) are ignorant and dont invest the proper effort into not being ignorant.

@freemo A Russian didn't like some terms in a credit card application - he crossed out penalties for non-payment & signed. He received the credit card & didn't pay the bills. He won, b/c Russia doesn't care if both parties to a contract have the same understanding. The same trick fails in the US because there is no meeting of the minds, & rightfully so.

@koherecoWatchdog I want to be clear though, dont take my disagreement to mean I am against your purpose.. clearly we disagree on how we view solutions and problems when it comes to personal rights, thats fine. But I recognize that your intentions are well meaning and that most of what you do appears to be informing the public as fairly as you can (though i do disagree with some of the loaded language, but it doesnt appear to be with the intention of misinforming anyone).

So we may disagree on the details but I do respect the fact that your intentions are good, your honest, and the discussions you engage in so far have been respectful even when faced with disagreement. All things that give me respect for you, so again, dont take my disagreement as hostility please.

@koherecoWatchdog A possible maybe threat is not an injustice.. a realization of a threat is an injustice.

Again its up to each individual to decide how much of a risk that is both in terms of how much harm they feel it will cause them for their info to get out, and how much they trust FB security to ensure it doesnt. People can and should make that judgement call.

But until that "risk" becomes real it is not an injustice and I will not attack FB simply on the grounds that they are in a position to do harm that they have not done... I **will** however chastise Fb for any harm they have already done.

Talking about potential risks is fine, but talking about them as if they are injustices that already happened is not appropriate IMO.

@freemo it's not a "possible threat", it's a certain threat. "Again its up to each individual to decide how much of a risk" <= this assumes an informed user on a platform where FB exploits ppl being uninformed (and even lies to ensure ppl are uninformed)

@koherecoWatchdog

> this assumes an informed user on a platform where FB exploits ppl being uninformed

Indeed it does, I assume it is the duty of every person to be informed and the consequences that come from them not informing themselves are, at least partly, their own fault.