Yikes.

  • DarkWasp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    286
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

    Zuck: Just ask.

    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

    [Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?

    Zuck: People just submitted it.

    Zuck: I don’t know why.

    Zuck: They “trust me”

    Zuck: Dumb fucks.“

  • mokoshark69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a reminder to lemmy users, that this new meta expriement will use the ActivityPub protocol, meaning that it can interact with other lemmy instances, please urge your lemmy instance admins to de-federate from this crap as soon as it launches!

    • mnstrspeed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      But why? Isn’t the whole point of federation that we can interact with people in other communities? Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub? Completely walling them off seems counterproductive

      Not defending Meta, just curious

        • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting and I’d say you’re right. If you were to see a mass adoption of the fediverse (such as Twitter imploding and mastadon becoming the replacement) there would be an immediate attempt by the big tech players to gain control of it in some way. And this is exactly how they would try to do it.

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s the alternative? They go with a non activity pub system and woo away all our users anyway?

          • lich_hegemon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            ·
            1 year ago

            If people want to crawl back into Meta’s clutches I’m not going to stop them. Don’t give the one nice thing we have to a corporation that only wants to exploit us.

          • clara@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            realistically, yes :(

            opinion time: not everything has to be about fast/unsustainable growth, in the pursuit of profit. i would prefer that the fediverse grows organically, and entices quality users, posters and commenters to join based on the merits of the service, and not on it’s access to inflated VC budgets, huge advertising campaigns, and exploitation of a first-mover advantage.

            facebook/meta will slay us, because we are a threat to it’s profit model. why are we even contemplating negotiations with a tiger while we have our head in it’s mouth? it beggars belief…

            • Lemmino@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I feel like there’s no winning if you’re a dev at one of these companies. Go with a centralized protocol, you get shit for creating a walled garden. Take part in federation, and people give you shit for that too. I think it’s genuinely amazing that we are seeing engineers that have made some of the most fundamental software that the internet runs on dip their toes into federation.

              • clara@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                i don’t blame the devs, in the same way that you can’t blame a cog in a machine. it’s the machine that i’m complaining at here, not the devs

                historically, big tech companies have exploited their dominant position to snuff out federated protocols in the past. why would they suddenly choose to take a sweet tone to fediverse/activitypub now?

                meta has a few options here for Threads, i will list some routes:

                1. co-operate fully with activitypub forever and ever, always in alignment with activitypub protocol, always does the right/moral thing, makes a meager profit and growth for doing so
                2. all of option 1, but then after building up user lock-in and momentum, then start adding “meta-net” exclusive features to entice users to instances under their control. wait patiently until dominant market share established, and then stop federating outside of meta-net, to force non users to switch over. make a bigger profit and growth.
                3. all of option 2, but also compete with fediverse using the strength of it’s inherited capital from meta, to gain market share quickly. bribe and buyout instances to join meta-net through sheer weight of money, send frivolous lawsuits/dmca to crush the dissenters. astroturf comment sections on non-meta instances to sway public opinion. harvest all data from activitypub to keep shadow accounts on non meta-net AP users. make even bigger profit and growth

                the machine is obviously going to take option 3 here. i feel sorry for the devs, who know full well that what they make can and will be used in this way.

        • damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is there a fediverse version of Facebook?

          Very roughly,
          Lemmy and Kbin = Reddit
          Masterson = Twitter

          So what equals Facebook

          • Risk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Presumably Facebook’s move into ActivityPub is to prevent or limit users moving to a decentralised alternative to Facebook?

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think Diaspora* is the federated FB alternative There was also a crypto backed and “freeze peach absolutist” alternative, Minds, dunno how that one’s going

          • devfuuu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Diaspora as said was it long ago. Nowadays I guess the Movim project based on xmpp can give and experience similar to it.

          • devfuuu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Diaspora as said was it long ago. Nowadays I guess the Movim project based on xmpp can give and experience similar to it.

          • devfuuu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Diaspora as said was it long ago. Nowadays I guess the Movim project based on xmpp can give and experience similar to it.

          • Risk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Presumably Facebook’s move into ActivityPub is to prevent or limit users moving to a decentralised alternative to Facebook?

      • graphite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        76
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?

        No. We don’t. The more hands they have in the fediverse pie, the more influence they have over it. The more influence they have, the more control. The more control, the more at the whim of their decisions you are. The more at the whim of their decisions, the more power they have over you.

        This should be common sense at this point.

        • Lemmino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          IMO this is such a shortsighted take and defeats the point of federation because of a knee jerk response.

          There is the potential for federation to grow massively with the injection of billions from big tech.

          • graphite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is the potential for federation to grow massively with the injection of billions from big tech.

            Sure, of course it would grow. But at what cost? And then who effectively owns it in the end? There’s an inevitable outcome - one that you apparently aren’t aware of.

          • catastrophicblues@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My take is that we should defederate them so that they don’t become the de facto instance in the Fediverse. That way, the Fediverse remains what it is now—open and truly decentralized. By defederating and discouraging them, we’re signaling to potential new users that they’ll be stuck in their own bubble.

          • graphite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You may be right - perhaps it’s inevitable, one way or another. I don’t know.

            I’m passive at this point.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?

        I certainly don’t. I abandoned Facebook years ago because of how BS they were getting with privacy concerns and social manipulation. Last thing I want is to bring those dumpster fires here. They join the platform, I will migrate to whichever Instances defed them or leave Lemmy entirely if necessary. Simply put, it’s been a breathe of rational, civil air here. While it is early days keeping that hostile-to-humanity crap out of here is obvious minimum we should be doing.

      • mokoshark69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        Were talking about meta here, this is a bait and switch attempt (I see it that way)

        They launch their new twitter competitor, everyone moves over to their new twitter clone, they will try and hold the power on standarts of federation (like any big tech corporation that has a smaller rival that succedes more then them, see microsoft vs netscape for refrence)

        If they will fail with that, they will try to seduce lemmy and mastodon instaces with monetization and big money handouts, were talking about facebook here after all, they are not short of scummy tactics

          • devfuuu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A pratice as old as time, done and proved to work. It’s not even theoretical, it’s gonna happen. You either are proactive in protecting the network or we will be too late to do anything. Always works like that. If you think that giving the benefit of the doubt and wait and see is an option, then you already lost.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If they can embrace and extend the fediverse you know they’re gonna extinguish it, too. They’re s bad faith actor, we don’t want them interacting with us or influencing us.

      • graphite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t we want these big platforms to adopt ActivityPub?

        No. We don’t. The more hands they have in the fediverse pie, the more influence they have over it. The more influence they have, the more control. The more control, the more at the whim of their decisions you are. The more at the whim of their decisions, the more power they have over you.

        This should be common sense at this point.

        • flop@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t even know if I disagree with “big platforms” using activitypub. Like Tumblr integration could be cool, but fucking facebook? Eww

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m don’t know how the federation protocol works exactly, but I’m pretty sure Meta can throw more resources into it than all the independent instances combined. Again, I don’t know anything about the specifics of the fediverse so I don’t know if that applies here, but generally once you control more than 50% of something that does not have a central authority - you became, de facto, that central authority.

        • Lemmino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is incentive for competition from Google, Twitter, etc, that would cause federation as a whole to grow without resulting in a single authority taking over the network.

      • Izzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We want individuals to adopt ActivityPub. Whether that be in the form of hosting new instances or contributing content. We don’t want corporations here trying to turn it into something they can use to make a profit. Once it becomes about the money it is on a death spiral like everything else before it.

      • LargeHardonCollider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another really big concern I have is that activity pub by definition shares all your posts with any instance that hosts your followers. So if you have a mastodon follower on FB’s activity pub/twitter replica, FB automatically gets your data even though you don’t use it

        The type of things they get are

        1. Your profile
        2. Whatever you post
        3. Who interacts with your posts
      • LargeHardonCollider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another really big concern I have is that activity pub by definition shares all your posts with any instance that hosts your followers. So if you have a mastodon follower on FB’s activity pub/twitter replica, FB automatically gets your data even though you don’t use it

    • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand why people call Facebook Meta now

      I don’t accept that name

      It’s Facebook

      • Izzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe they actually changed their corporations name to Meta. As crazy as that rebranding is.

        • UnstuckinTime@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but they largely get it because the name Facebook became so toxic and poisoned and it’s probably better just to force them to have to stay in the cultural millieu as Facebook, the company that runs psychological experiments on its users and creates profiles illegally on non-users as well. That pays to be installed on Android devices and not be allowed to be uninstalled.

          • Izzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder how long it will take to tarnish the Meta name. Assuming it isn’t already. The concept of the metaverse is a complete failure and they also never really stopped being terrible with data harvesting.

    • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      but homeboy wanting to open the fediverse to Meta really still out here like "oh, there’s nothing malicious here, not at all; water’s fine"

      • mokoshark69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The last thing we need is meta clawing their way around the fediverse, id rather have them stick to their own bullshit

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, he’s a big fan of access. May as well just make an extra category marked “everything”.

  • AnonTwo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t that just…everything?

    Like is there anything they aren’t requesting?

  • Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t forget to report it inside Play Store. All of these permissions are not required, thus the app is breaking store rules.

    • vibe@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instagram has all the same stuff and it’s been there for years. Bet it’s also the case with Facebook

    • gibs@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s meta. Unfortunately I’m sure their lawyers can come up with dumb bullshit excuses for every one of these.

    • manned_meatball@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re not permissions, they’re the types of data that may be collected. Every popular closed source app has a similar obscene list of private data they may collect, but in most cases it’s the user that chooses to provide that kind of information voluntarily anyways.

  • corroded@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    I run a pair of PiHole instances for DNS on my home network, and I periodically check the logs and look up blocked domains that I don’t recognize. Every single time, it’s a service that provides telemetry for mobile apps. It’s insane how much data apps try to collect.

  • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    I bet they said something like “we don’t use most of that information, we just need access in case we add a new feature in the future that uses it”. And then it’ll come out that they’ve always been using it, and it’s been associated with your identifying info. And then their server will be hacked (because the admin password was “meta123”) and the all the info will leak. The modern internet sucks.

    • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      They tried to use the same excuse with their privacy policy for oculus. ie they can even watch the cameras if they want but they promise they won’t…

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need massive punitive fines for misusing data farming. Data leaks of health and financial information should literally put billion dollar businesses out of business for good.

      If they can’t manage the data they don’t deserve it, full stop.

  • moitoi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m asking myself how people can accept these conditions. There is a huge work of education on privacy to be done.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There should be some sort of OS-level flag that appears before downloading to inform users along the lines of “This application requests access to more permissions than typical apps in this category do. Are you sure you wish to proceed?” Maybe with a link to an informational site about how apps can use your data and why protecting your privacy is important.

      • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whilst that would be fantastic. I highly doubt google or apple are even going to entertain the idea, especially when you want to download one of their apps.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          one of their apps

          I know Apple Bad ™, but they’re probably the most privacy-focused big company in existence. With their current model/values/whatever, they would never collect enough data to need to slap that warning on any of their apps.

          • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Huh. Honestly, fair enough. To be honest., I don’t usually look into any companies at that much of a deeper lever. So I just assumed they’d be the same.

            • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m actually shocked that any company values privacy at this point. It’s definitely reflected in the price, since you’re not subsidizing your cost with your data for ads, but it’s still refreshing to me. I hope they stay that way. I’m a hardcore PC user, but I like having my phone stuff private/locked down so I’ve been on iPhone for a long time.

              • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Mee too at this point. I’m not a huge fan of apple devices as I like my stuff being open. It’s just a shame I’ve gotta use android. I know I can root my phone but I can’t be arsed dealing with it all

                • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I had fun on my G1 and G2, installing CFW. The G2 was a fucking pain because it had some anti-CFW bullshit that would reflash to stock unless you disabled that. Early Android phones went to shit so quickly and became soooo sloooooow though, so ya kinda HAD to use CFW.

                  As a lifelong PC person, I couldn’t love iOS more. It’s stupid efficient and fully featured (now, it definitely had issues and limitations when it was new.) At this point, I’m always confused when folks say they need Android for customization or whatever. There’s precious little that stock Android does that stock iOS can’t do now.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Apple is a company I could see making it a priority, because they tout privacy as a major selling point of iOS. There are entire ad campaigns about it. It’s not perfect, but they’ve done a lot in the name of privacy, even when it costs them money (e.g. all the bad press that came out about iOS when they added a notification for when apps were accessing your clipboard…and it turned out a shit ton of apps were just scraping your clipboard all day).

          Google, though…yeah. Android has some privacy control, but in reality they’re mainly following Apple’s lead so as not to lose customers who care about privacy. I don’t think they actually give a damn about consumer data, as long as they get their share of tracking done. There are more privacy-oriented ROMs out there, but the average consumer is never going to use anything other than the version of Android that came with their phone.

          It would be nice if there was some third-party entity that performed privacy analysis of popular applications and provided a score on some sort of privacy index that could be featured on that app’s storefront. It’s a shame that we are just left to assume how much of our data is probably being harvested and there’s nothing to be done about it.

      • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whilst that would be fantastic. I highly doubt google or apple are even going to entertain the idea, especially when you want to download one of their apps.

      • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Aurora Store for Android has this warning. I steer people I care about to Aurora Store for this reason.

    • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what people need are clear examples, concisely expressed, of the explicit harm experienced by forgoing a certain quanta of privacy, since the benefits are apparent (eg gain access to a certain service/community/etc).

      • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d think the dystopia of China and what they did to Hong Kong would be enough. We hear scary stories about China that you think people would want not want that here. Or episodes of Black Mirror.

        • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          None of that can be explained by allowing private companies to collect digital data.

          What you’ve posted is a great example of scaremongering.

          Again, if you want to advocate for privacy, you need to make a direct and explicit connection. Not this tinfoil hat, arm waving general conspiracy thinking. It’s not compelling

        • Resistentialism@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think some System of a Down lyrics are useful here.

          “Why don’t you ask the kids at Tienanmen Square Was fashion the reason why they were there?”

    • Pika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like they just went down the list of permissions and said yes to everything, they probally actually log it all too, disgusting

  • ExecutorAxon@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do all of Zucc companies terms and conditions have this air of desperation and grubbiness about them? 😂

    No other services feel as slimy even though they’re all doing mostly the same things.

    Meta feels like you’re interacting with a drug addicted stalker following you home