🇳🇱
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Basically most of the laws the Nazis enacted that made the jews and other groups "illegal" were repealed.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 "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.
@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
@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.
@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.
@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.
> 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.
@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)