Zuckerberg hits users with the hard truth: You agreed to this

I never cared about what Facebook did with the data they collected from their users because I did NOT consent. I chose to remain off their platform. I am, however, reliably informed that they nevertheless /persist/ in gathering data about me -- presumably via friends and family and the FB apps they use, along with backend pattern and facial recognition and so on.

Any claim of theirs that I "consented" to them building, using and profiting by my foibles, relationships and habits is false. Not merely disingenuous; an outright lie.

Yes you consented, but it's not an informed consent. Facebook will do anything to keep you as uninformed as possible (unreadable legalese, dark UX patterns, opt-outs, ...)

Dear Zuckerberg,

If we consented to this and were still genuinely surprised, its an indication that the consent was not sufficiently informed. This is your problem, not ours. Most of us Average Joes just don't understand the scope of what data collection is possible when we give you access to our phone's features - especially when you couch the access request for quite innocuous and even helpful features.

Worse, we don't really understand what can be done with this data. That you can take location data and will use it to infer where we live and work - that you could use it to categorize us according to race and religion - these kinds of possibilities just never crossed our minds when you asked for our location to share with nearby friends.

So, no, we did not agree to this - we were not well enough informed to agree with this. To paraphrase a meme: You might be legally correct, but you're an asshole.

FYI, Zuckerberg's _not_ referring to the EULA or TOS. He's talking about this dialog box in the app itself:

https://i.imgur.com/zGUdifB.png

Specifically, the very first sentence of the dialog box, which says:

> Continuously upload info about your contacts like phone numbers and nicknames, and your call and text history.

The article's not entirely clear on that point, so I thought I'd mention it here.

"And sure, we were as misleading as possible about it and tried our best to trick you into clicking that Next button, but that doesn't count, right?"

This reminds me of Steve Jobs' "You're holding it wrong." Tone deaf. Platforms always share the most responsibility. This applies to any UX thing. You can argue that the users are "idiots" for not doing what you think they're supposed to do, or you can fix your UX to make it as easy to understand as possible.

Alternatively, you can design your UX with dark patterns to ensure that users do a lot of stuff that are not good for them and aren't supposed to do, but you convince them or trick them into doing anyway, because that's good for you.

I also think that by using this strategy Facebook may win the battle, but it's going to lose the war. Eventually people will go "Well, then, if it's my fault, then maybe I shouldn't be accepting all of that stuff Facebook is pushing into my face in their apps." And then Facebook will slowly but surely die as people use it less and less as "Facebook intended" them to use it.

Statements like "you agreed to this" are disingenuous at best. Probably a more truthful statement would be, "you had to know we were getting SOMETHING out of this." While yes, the terms and conditions were completely forthright about what Facebook could do with collected data, they were counting on an a very small percentage of their users actually reading (or caring) about those terms. I can agree that no one has the right to be outraged though. The only sticky part here is that if I violate Facebook's Terms and Services, they'll terminate my account. They'll most likely still use my data after the termination of our agreement though.

"Hey we would like to give you weather reports and the ability to see when people in your area are selling things

P.s we will sell this on to third parties so they can target you to influence elections."

The problem here is Facebook doesn't ever word things like this, they up sell Facebook platform features, even if they are segways into increased advertising revenue.

I think regulation should have a stance on this. It needs to be easy for users to see exactly how their data is being used, and in a timely fashion. If the company can't protect our data, they don't deserve to have it.

What do you say Mark? You agreed to this*

* - https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180325071038-01-faceb...

I have a Facebook account on which I have shared as little as possible. When I downloaded the data off the platform, it was completely empty which was no surprise.

But, as it turned out my friends were not so lucky. All of them had my number saved. Some had my birthday. Quite a few had tagged me at my work location etc.

So, even with efforts on my side to try and not share data, FB still has a profile on me. I find it hard to believe that there are lot of other platforms which can build such a cache of information about me, without me giving them explicit permission.

That's funny, as I'd say that;

>"Contact uploading is optional. People are expressly asked if they want to give permission to upload their contacts from their phone – it’s explained right there in the apps when you get started."

doesn't really cover the complaint from Dylan McKay regarding;

> "metadata about every text message I've ever received or sent"

and;

> "the metadata of every cellular call I've ever made, including time and duration"

This discussion was flagged marked as dead and knocked off the front page within a few minutes, is that normal? It seems strange that it’s no longer flagged or dead but still off the homepage. I find this to be the most damaging Facebook story on there so I worry about why it’s been removed when the discussion on here was interesting.

Another prisoner's dilemma stuck at backstab/backstab. No individual company can offer simple terms, because it's against their short-term interests. Simple terms only work if everyone else offers simple terms. Legal precedent and regulatory capture has evolved us to a local maxima.

Why don't they just come out with a subscription version of Facebook? $40/year for no ads, no data miners or data sharing and a customizable "news" feed (e.g. no shared posts from crazy Uncle, prioritize family, etc.)

Some percentage of users will do that. If 1% of 2 billion users choose it, then they get $800 million per year.

It seems logical if people don't like being the product, let them pay for the product, right?

If you've already agreed, then that is too bad, that data is already in their hands. However, if you would like to make sure to let Facebook know that your agreement is over, feel free to go here: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account

I never signed up, yet I know Facebook has data about me anyway. How exactly did I "agree to this"?

To be honest what really worries me is the people who have "agreed to this" without even realizing anything remotely closer to this. I mean people with poor education to publish everyday photos and texts into Facebook.

Many people use their personal phones for work calls. They may have inadvertently breached NDAs, and in some cases laws, by not paying attention to their privacy settings.

Mark wants to surpass $100 billion in lost stock, like a champ

Remember when people laughed off Stallman as an extremist?

He obviously doesn't watch South Park.

Anecdote: I was in Australia once and idly flipping through the hotel room's TV channels. I happened upon the Aussie Dateline, their version a popular US program on NBC that does some alright in-depth reporting on special issues.

As an aside: one thing to remember about Australia compared to the US is that the Aussie version of things is like the US version, but in a fun house mirror. Everything is called the same, and is similar, but is just different enough as to give you 'category-vertigo'. The Aussie BBQ is a BBQ, but not really anything like a US BBQ. The Aussie seafood is seafood, but not really anything like US seafood. Aussie radio is radio, but not really anything like US radio. ETC.

The Aussie version of Dateline that I stumbled upon was taking an in-depth look at a rancher in QLD and his issues with an oil/gas company. The rancher quit school at 16 (generally, a wonderful idea in commonwealth countries that the US should import) and became a boxer, then a car salesman, then a rodeo bronco rider, and then a cattle rancher with a wife and 3 young kids. Very importantly, neither he nor his wife could read. His contracts would be signed with an 'X' and a handshake. From what I could tell about QLD law, every contract must be read to a person that cannot read, and a sense of 'good faith' must exist between both parties.

Well, a US oil/gas company came to him and found the black gold under his ranch. They set up many pump-jacks and ruined his grazing land. He quickly went bankrupt as all his cattle died. So he went to court over it. The US company put their hand to their face and basically went: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!' The contract was written in a very favorable way to the company and screwed the rancher. So much was the stress, that the wife tried to commit suicide. Watching that portion of the interview was heartbreaking. Here was a tough, sunburnt man, brought to tears over finding his wife just about to commit the act.

But QLD law was very favorable to the man. The contract was voided as it was created in bad faith and the US company was made to pay to remove the jacks and pay the rancher back for the damages. The Dateline piece was mostly following their attempts in international courts to get the company to pay up, as they had fled Australia in order to skip out on the payment.

Here's my point: What the Zuck is doing, by saying: 'Nee-neer-Nee-Neer-Nee-neer, you signed the contract! Ha!', is a very American thing to do; and it won't stand up in many other countries, or even his own. Just because a contract was clicked on and agreed to in bad faith, doesn't mean that he will be able to hide behind that shield forever. Even if you have a piece of paper that says 'I can be an asshole', and everyone has signed it, doesn't mean that you can be an asshole forever. People don't like assholes and they will get lawyers/barristers in to express that feeling.

This is actually the correct response. A better way of saying it is: Facebook is not free. You pay by surrendering data about yourself and your friends.