🇳🇱
I think this meme puts things into a scary perspective, and it is entirely true, no need for exaggeration.
When homosexuals were liberated from concentration camps in WWII those who were there for being gay were put right back into prisons in germany at least.
Basically most of the laws the Nazis enacted that made the jews and other groups "illegal" were repealed. However paragraph 175 which specified that homosexuality was illegal due to "indecency" remained on the books until 1969, and under that law for the homosexual population the holocaust never really ended.
Some perspective I think its good we all have on the issue.
#Homoesexuality #LGBT #Holocaust #HumanRights #CivilRights #CivilLiberties
@freemo Today's threat is that #Facebook is keeping track of who is gay, which can be used against gays in the 12 countries where they can get the death penalty for it: https://web.archive.org/web/20201222195411/https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021/1/249457-does-facebook-use-sensitive-data-for-advertising-purposes/fulltext
@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).
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)
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
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 "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.