1 files changed, 155 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/memos/WM-038.txt b/memos/WM-038.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f34e93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/memos/WM-038.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Document: WM-038                                                 P. Webb
+Category: Rant                                                2019.03.07
+
+                        The Bullshit of Facebook
+
+Abstract
+
+   Platitudes, promises, and piss-poor policies
+
+Body
+
+   Yesterday, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg published an
+   essay[1] where he promises a "A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social
+   Networking". The optimist would say he's learned the error of
+   his/Facebook's ways, the pessimist would write the entire thing off,
+   and the realist would assume this is reactionary posturing due to the
+   fact that Facebook is experiencing "an estimated 15 million fewer
+   users in the United States compared to 2017" (according to
+   Edison Research[2]).
+
+   I am in the latter two camps but I'm particularly incensed about how
+   brazen the Zuck continues to be in his lying. It IS a new era so
+   maybe this is his new normal. Let's dissect his several "promises"
+   (bold text inside quotes represent emphasis I've added).
+
+   1. Reducing Permanence
+
+      > People should be comfortable being themselves, and should not
+      > have to worry about what they share coming back to hurt them
+      > later. So *we won't keep messages or stories around for longer
+      > than necessary* to deliver the service or longer than people
+      > want them.
+
+      How long is "necessary"? Facebook stores what you've typed in the
+      post box but you've "have not sent"[3] or "you deleted"[4]. It is
+      completely unnecessary to store that information in the first
+      place, let alone for an indeterminate amount of time.
+
+   2. Encryption and Safety
+
+      > People should expect that *we will do everything we can to keep
+      > them safe on our services* within the limits of what's possible
+      > in an encrypted service.
+
+      People *did* expect this and some hope that Facebook tries harder.
+      Making private information availble to third-parties in order to
+      make money isn't how you protect people. In Facebook's case,
+      protecting users in this way comes into direct conflict with their
+      desire to make money. This is why they are so conflicted about it.
+
+      > At the same time, there are real safety concerns to address
+      > before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all of our
+      > messaging services. *Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy,
+      > but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things.* When
+      > billions of people use a service to connect, some of them are
+      > going to misuse it for truly terrible things like child
+      > exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We have a responsibility
+      > to work with law enforcement and to help prevent these wherever
+      > we can. *We are working to improve our ability to identify and
+      > stop bad actors across our apps by detecting patterns of
+      > activity or through other means*, even when we can't see the
+      > content of the messages, and we will continue to invest in this
+      > work. But we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never
+      > find all of the potential harm we do today when our security
+      > systems can see the messages themselves.
+
+      There are a couple things to unpack here. Zuckerberg delivered the
+      flawed argument of [insert tech here] should not be used because
+      criminals exist. This is a straw man argument. The mere EXISTENCE
+      of a particular technology isn't going to make law enforcement's
+      jobs impossible, just like it isn't going to enable criminals to
+      be untouchable. Criminals and law enforcement are locked in a
+      perpetual arms race (sometimes literally) and will continue to be
+      until the heat death of the Universe and then some.
+
+      Sounds like Facebook is trying to figure out how to create a
+      "secure back door" and we all know that doesn't exist. At which
+      point we'll get an apology and a "pledge to do better" when the
+      inevitable data hack and resulting leak occurs. 😴
+
+   3. Secure data storage
+
+      > People should expect that *we won't store sensitive data in
+      > countries with weak records on human rights* like privacy and
+      > freedom of expression in order to protect data from being
+      > improperly accessed.
+
+      Reeeeeeally. China? They exist. They also have nearly 1.5 BILLION
+      people. No way Facebook is giving up the chance to get a slice of
+      that pie.
+
+      WeChat is what Facebook aspires to be, but like any company that
+      wants to do business in China, you've gotta have servers there
+      because the Chinese government demands it.
+
+      Apple recently had to put servers in China JUST for their mainland
+      customers. However, Apple has a proven track record in regards to
+      privacy and end-to-end encryption so I am less worried about
+      Chinese dissidents using iPhones than I am about them using
+      Facebook for literally anything.
+
+      Like Zuckerberg stated in his essay, encryption has saved
+      countless dissidents from being murdered but I am not confident in
+      Facebook's ability to protect them.
+
+   Conclusion
+
+      Facebook's profits are up but positive public perception is
+      *plummeting*. It's difficult not to think of Zuckerberg's
+      "candidness" as sweet talk to entice Gen Z'ers and millennials
+      back to the platform and to make your auntie feel safe because
+      "the guy who made the site said so".
+
+      However, Mark Zuckerberg does a great job of stressing the
+      importance of social networks:
+
+      > Public social networks will continue to be very important in
+      > people's lives -- for connecting with everyone you know,
+      > discovering new people, ideas and content, and giving people a
+      > voice more broadly. People find these valuable every day, and
+      > there are still a lot of useful services to build on top of
+      > them. But now, *with all the ways people also want to interact
+      > privately, there's also an opportunity to build a simpler
+      > platform that's focused on privacy first.*
+
+      Problem is, I don't think he believes his own words.
+
+      Is Facebook being refactored? Are they really going back to the
+      original vision, to make the world feel smaller and more
+      personable? Or is he talking about my social network in
+      progress[5], Socii[6]?
+
+      Between my day job helping create a decentralized content
+      platform[7] and creating Socii, I've got my hands full and I'm
+      also super passionate about protecting my family, friends, and
+      cool folks on the Internet like yourself.
+
+      Y'know, focused on privacy first. 🕸
+
+References
+
+   [1] <https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634>
+   [2] <https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/06/tech/exclusive-look-numbers-showing-users-leaving-facebook-by-the-millions>
+   [3] <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/14/facebook-says-new-bug-allowed-apps-access-private-photos-up-million-users>
+   [4] <https://slate.com/technology/2013/12/facebook-self-censorship-what-happens-to-the-posts-you-dont-publish.html>
+   [5] </WM-023>
+   [6] <https://socii.network>
+   [7] <https://lbry.tech>