Facebook

[Hehehe]

Sure, and you can track users by their banking passwords too.

Is that possible just by running scripts on browser?

Who, specifically, do you think is pulling my IP address from Facebook, and what specific mechanism do you think they're using for this?

Sure, but you're either lacking a good understanding of the actual mechanisms or technical details, or the ability to demonstrate your level of understanding.

I can't believe you just said these things in the same post. Have you even bothered reading anything I wrote? Facebook can easily see which people are contacting their servers from which IP addresses, information which they can then sell to data brokers. As an advanced user, you understand what an IP address is, right? You understand how Facebook can obtain that, right?

It's like the web privacy equivalent of The NSA is not Made of Magic.

Speaking of the NSA, they have the ability to force tech giants into installing backdoors on their software. Case in point, Lavabit. TrueCrypt is also rumored to have been a victim of NSA, but these FISA court rulings are secret, which means we can only guess.

In either case, if you follow best practices, you're not immune to targeted attacks, but it's enough to foil the dragnets.

Yes, I know how to foil them. In practice it's more trouble than it is worth though, but I still don't like the idea

No, you didn't. You just did some hand-wavy stuff.

Did you even read them?

 

[Zelig]

Is that possible just by running scripts on browser?

No, nor is collecting MAC addresses.

Facebook can easily see which people are contacting their servers from which IP addresses, information which they can then sell to data brokers. As an advanced user, you understand what an IP address is, right? You understand how Facebook can obtain that, right?

Data brokers aren't some magical shadowy entity. Facebook makes money by selling access to ads. Their non-ad revenue is pretty much nil. Put up.

Speaking of the NSA, they have the ability to force tech giants into installing backdoors on their software. Case in point, Lavabit.

Lavabit is an example of the NSA failing to do specifically that.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/si_team/2006/03/02/back-door-nonsense/

TrueCrypt is also rumored to have been a victim of NSA, but these FISA court rulings are secret, which means we can only guess.

Stupid, unsubstantiated rumour.

 

[Commodore]

Saw today that a senator told Zuckerberg that Facebook better "shape up or get broken up". Here's the problem I have with that: It may sound good to day something like that, but threatening to break Facebook up is a pretty empty threat when you look at our government's track record of dealing with tech giants. They almost never take any meaningful action when it comes to breaking up potential monopolies or trusts.

So okay, this senator says "shape up or get broken up"? I say "I'll believe it when I see it."

 

[Sommerswerd]

Saw today that a senator told Zuckerberg that Facebook better "shape up or get broken up". Here's the problem I have with that: It may sound good to day something like that, but threatening to break Facebook up is a pretty empty threat when you look at our government's track record of dealing with tech giants. They almost never take any meaningful action when it comes to breaking up potential monopolies or trusts.

So okay, this senator says "shape up or get broken up"? I say "I'll believe it when I see it."

But what is he telling them to do when he says "shape up"? Become even more ubiquitous and pervasive than they already are? Exercise even more comprehensive oversight and control over social media than they already do? So in other words, this Senator seems to be saying...

"Become a monopoly... Or get broken up"

 

[Broken_Erika]

But what is he telling them to do when he says "shape up"? Become even more ubiquitous and pervasive than they already are? Exercise even more comprehensive oversight and control over social media than they already do? So in other words, this Senator seems to be saying...

"Become a monopoly... Or get broken up"

Nice choice! Fail to become a Monopoly, and get broken up for not being a Monopoly. Become a Monopoly, and get broken up for being a Monopoly.

 

[Takhisis]

Saw today that a senator told Zuckerberg that Facebook better "shape up or get broken up". Here's the problem I have with that: It may sound good to day something like that, but threatening to break Facebook up is a pretty empty threat when you look at our government's track record of dealing with tech giants. They almost never take any meaningful action when it comes to breaking up potential monopolies or trusts.

So okay, this senator says "shape up or get broken up"? I say "I'll believe it when I see it."

I for one would say that not taking action is meaningful.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I get the sense that the only thing I can do on my own to like protect my inofrmation or whatnot is to stop using the internet alltogether, which I guess I could do, but

 

[Samson]

There is an interesting case against facebook that has come out today. Martin Lewis, a famous UK consumer rights campaigner (he runs the website moneysavingexpert.com) is suing facebook for adverts that, without his permission, use his name / image to promote financial prodcuts / scams, such as binary trading, energy products, PPI companies and mortgage brokers. Some of these are things that Martin Lewis has actively campained against. It raises the issue of how responsible facebook is for what they provide to people (both paid and unpaid content), and also if they have to answer for this in the UK courts.

Personally I cannot see how if you are paid to pressent someone with an advert you have to bear some responsability if that advert is illegal. We will have to wait until the court case to decide, hopefully it will not be settled out of court as Martin Lewis is giving any procedes to anti-scam charities.

 

[Silurian]

If Facebook and others will not proactively deal with abuses such as the above and other abuses then an internet advertising tax should be introduced.

Facebook etc should be severed with an improvement notice.
If it does not make an improvement within 3 months a 10% tax on all advertising fees paid to Facebook in the UK or EU would be levied on the company who pays for the advert, or places the advert or is otherwise connected to it. So the Soapy Soap company and or Adverts for Fish ltd will have to pay the tax.
At any time before the 3 months are up Soapy Soap etc could legally pull the advert with no legal comeback from anyone.
After 4 months the tax would rise to 20% and so on until Facebook makes the required improvement.

So Facebook would have to make an improvement if it wanted to keep UK or EU based advertisers etc.

 

[Samson]

If Facebook and others will not proactively deal with abuses such as the above and other abuses then an internet advertising tax should be introduced.

Facebook etc should be severed with an improvement notice.
If it does not make an improvement within 3 months a 10% tax on all advertising fees paid to Facebook in the UK or EU would be levied on the company who pays for the advert, or places the advert or is otherwise connected to it. So the Soapy Soap company and or Adverts for Fish ltd will have to pay the tax.
At any time before the 3 months are up Soapy Soap etc could legally pull the advert with no legal comeback from anyone.
After 4 months the tax would rise to 20% and so on until Facebook makes the required improvement.

So Facebook would have to make an improvement if it wanted to keep UK or EU based advertisers etc.

The difficult point, and one that has to be dealt with when they work out how to tax facebook et al. is what does "advertising fees paid to Facebook in the UK or EU" mean? Does it matter that it was the Swiss subsidiary of Soapy Soap that paid for the advert not the UK arm? What I would do is make all money earned by page impressions that originated in the UK liable for UK tax. I would not allow deductions for "corporate services" or "intellectual property". I would also make the companies liable for the content that they are paid to distribute at least, there is no safe harbour if people are paying you for distribution.

 

[Silurian]

The difficult point, and one that has to be dealt with when they work out how to tax facebook et al. is what does "advertising fees paid to Facebook in the UK or EU" mean? Does it matter that it was the Swiss subsidiary of Soapy Soap that paid for the advert not the UK arm? What I would do is make all money earned by page impressions that originated in the UK liable for UK tax. I would not allow deductions for "corporate services" or "intellectual property". I would also make the companies liable for the content that they are paid to distribute at least, there is no safe harbour if people are paying you for distribution.

The path the money takes to get to Facebook would not matter.
If Soapy Soap was based in the US or Switzerland its UK subsidiary or distributor would have to pay the tax on the cost of the advert.
The distributor could of course stop distributing if it did not want to pay the tax before the 3 months were up.
Adverts for products supplied to individuals from abroad may well have no UK or EU presence so may well escape the Tax.
But the loss reduction in income from the rest would be a great incentive.

 

[Zelig]

If Facebook and others will not proactively deal with abuses such as the above and other abuses then an internet advertising tax should be introduced.

Sod that. Clamp down on all advertisements.

The difficult point, and one that has to be dealt with when they work out how to tax facebook et al. is what does "advertising fees paid to Facebook in the UK or EU" mean? Does it matter that it was the Swiss subsidiary of Soapy Soap that paid for the advert not the UK arm? What I would do is make all money earned by page impressions that originated in the UK liable for UK tax. I would not allow deductions for "corporate services" or "intellectual property". I would also make the companies liable for the content that they are paid to distribute at least, there is no safe harbour if people are paying you for distribution.

I still have a hard time thinking of how to apply this fairly without specifically targeting FB/Google. They have stunningly high ARPU numbers, and are an order of magnitude better at monetizing at scale than anyone else in internet advertising.

Honestly, I think the easiest (not easy) approach would just be to tell them their business models aren't legitimate. Allow them to continue operating, but toss the uBlock Origin developer a few token million to hire a fulltime staff, and provide free tech support to everyone to get ad blocking set up in their browsers. Force FB/Google to run ads advertising uBlock.

 

[Samson]

I still have a hard time thinking of how to apply this fairly without specifically targeting FB/Google. They have stunningly high ARPU numbers, and are an order of magnitude better at monetizing at scale than anyone else in internet advertising.

You mean that if we set the "internet ad tax" at say 5% that would hardly touch FB/Google but put everyone else out of business, because they have so much advertising revenue per user? One way this could be handled, though I am not sure if it would work or if it would be just too provincial, would be to make some expenses (eg. coder time) deductible within a tax zone but not outside it. So a UK company could count development expenses against revenue in the UK, but would not for revenue from Switzerland. This would encourage local web startups, but still allow decent taxing of the multinationals.

I know next to nothing about taxes, but I find the arguments from the current crop of politicians who are blaming everyone but themselves for these untaxable, uncontrollable internet megacorps to be quite specious.

 

[Takhisis]

Personally I cannot see how if you are paid to pressent someone with an advert you have to bear some responsability if that advert is illegal.

They are part of the supply chain, so under modern consumer laws they are liable.

With physical objects you can sue against the manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, shippers, all the way down to the actual retail shopwhere you bought the product. The same principle applies in this case. Facebook delivers a product (a service, if you will), so they have to be held responsible for what they do with it.

 

[rah]

The easiest solution is to just stop using it. They'll get the hint. You can see the impact of just the threat. They're running scarred.

I think I have averaged looking at facebook less than once a year. No great loss.
By daughter thinks it's for old folks.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

By daughter thinks it's for old folks.

My younger brother and all his high school/college underclassmen friends would agree. He's deactivated his Facebook and Twitter, and his entire friend group uses Snapchat and Instagram for their social media needs.

 

[rah]

Real life interactions traditionally work even better.

 

[Takhisis]

The easiest solution is to just stop using it. They'll get the hint.

I myself use it only when absolutely necessary and cellphones not at all.

 

[Takhisis]

The easiest solution is to just stop using it. They'll get the hint. You can see the impact of just the threat. They're running scarred.

It has had… some impact?

Facebook shrugs off privacy scandal to post record $12bn revenues
Company sees ad sales soar despite Cambridge Analytica revelations as Zuckerberg hails ‘strong start’.​

Or maybe not.

By daughter thinks it's for old folks.

Youngsters use WhatsApp instead, which is also owned and operated by Facebook.
Which made me wander over to Wikipedia and find this:

Brazil
On December 17, 2015, mobile providers in Brazil were ordered to block WhatsApp for 48 hours. The ban was ordered for the service's failure to cooperate with criminal court orders in July and August 2015. The following morning, however, a judge from the appeals court ordered that the ban be lifted for being an unreasonable response, recommending that the company be fined instead. Following the ban, but prior to its reversal, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded by stating that he was "stunned that our efforts to protect people's data would result in such an extreme decision by a single judge to punish every person in Brazil who uses WhatsApp. We hope the Brazilian courts quickly reverse course." The competing service Telegram reported that 1.5 million Brazilians had downloaded its app while the WhatsApp ban was in place.[147][148]​

 

[Zelig]

User growth in ever region.