From 8c34d810af95fae0ef846f54370a8c88bfab7123 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "netop://ウィビ" Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2026 14:24:49 -0700 Subject: initial commit --- memos/WM-038.txt | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 155 insertions(+) create mode 100644 memos/WM-038.txt (limited to 'memos/WM-038.txt') 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] + [2] + [3] + [4] + [5] + [6] + [7] -- cgit v1.2.3