>But I don't see how "FB's behaviors are not necessarily objectively bad", unless one considers only the profit motive as prime without giving any thought to other factors. Can you expand on that?
Anti-Disclaimer: I do not work for Facebook nor have I ever have in the past.
I think the challenge on expanding on that is that you have not made a case for why it is objectively bad. Your posture is one of an assumption that everyone here understands and has the facts that you have. So it is hard to answer your question without knowing what you are thinking.
Additionally, I am wondering why the question is specifically about FB devs, as opposed to Google's? Or frankly, so many other companies who are likely making money in similar ways. Guessing that should include Yelp, LinkedIn, etc (not sure, though). Are we targeting FB merely because they're very effective?
For me, I have said it here and in person before: I do not see a problem so far in what Facebook is doing. I mean, I have quite a lot of personal issues with Facebook, which is why I have never had an account. Over 10 years ago when my friends in college asked why I did not have an account, my response was always "Why would I want a private company to know who my friends are? That is information that is precious." However, that's my personal issue, and my stance is and has always been that if a particular user is OK with Facebook having that information in exchange for their services, there is no ethical/moral dilemma. It is a transaction, and neither party is being coerced. So I have never been in favor of legislation that limits this relationship.
Now it should not be hard to understand that for me, if I've lived a fine life all this time without Facebook, any kind of argument that "not joining Facebook is not a realistic option" will not receive my sympathies.
The basic data collection is fairly transparent: Everything you provide to them (content, contacts, etc) is available to them. No user should be surprised that they utilize this information. It is the default assumption for any online service. If you use your Facebook account to log into other sites, it should be obvious that Facebook has that info. With regards to the more "shadowy" aspects (e.g. cookies tracking you across sites, etc), a point could be made, but honestly none of this is shadowy any more - it's been in the press repeatedly for years. Once again, if the users don't care, I don't see how it can be "objectively bad".
People tend to invoke the user's ignorance: Most users are not tech savvy and cannot be expected to know how all this works - so they cannot reasonably know they are making a bad bargain. I am not sympathetic to this. The reason is that in all the years Facebook has been in existence, I have talked to and educated many average folks about the potential downsides of giving a private company so much information about you. Everyone I spoke to was quite OK with the whole concept. Not one person felt it was problematic. So not only do I not have a reason to think FB is "objectively bad", I cannot even invoke social proof! Whatever bad people keep claiming is coming out of FB is something most of the population does not think is bad.
I have few sympathies for the (very few) people who are whining about it, because their behavior is similar to irresponsible adults who continually make bad decisions and have lives wrecked as a result, and then expect to get bailed out. Like not buying earthquake insurance in an earthquake zone and then demanding compensation when they lose their house.
Facebook did not become what they did by being clever against their users. They got there by working with them. Any discussion of issues about Facebook without implicating the users who happily helped them is biased.
Finally, and perhaps the most controversial part of my comment: Let's not kid ourselves. People are upset about this because it helped Trump more than any real concern about our privacy. Had a more likeable candidate (Obama, etc) used data from CA to help win an election, I would expect a fraction of the coverage this is getting right now. In fact, I think Obama did heavily utilize these services in 2008 and 2012 - just not as effectively as Trump's campaign did. If anything, Trump's campaign was merely more effective.
I recently converted to your camp of thinking. Facebook is the manifestation of the ignorance, not the source of it. Recently I had conversations with female friends who said this directly to me: "I don't care if Facebook logs my sensitive messages and my nudes are leaked as a result of that."
Privacy to the average person is like hell to the non-Christian.
Anti-Disclaimer: I do not work for Facebook nor have I ever have in the past.
I think the challenge on expanding on that is that you have not made a case for why it is objectively bad. Your posture is one of an assumption that everyone here understands and has the facts that you have. So it is hard to answer your question without knowing what you are thinking.
Additionally, I am wondering why the question is specifically about FB devs, as opposed to Google's? Or frankly, so many other companies who are likely making money in similar ways. Guessing that should include Yelp, LinkedIn, etc (not sure, though). Are we targeting FB merely because they're very effective?
For me, I have said it here and in person before: I do not see a problem so far in what Facebook is doing. I mean, I have quite a lot of personal issues with Facebook, which is why I have never had an account. Over 10 years ago when my friends in college asked why I did not have an account, my response was always "Why would I want a private company to know who my friends are? That is information that is precious." However, that's my personal issue, and my stance is and has always been that if a particular user is OK with Facebook having that information in exchange for their services, there is no ethical/moral dilemma. It is a transaction, and neither party is being coerced. So I have never been in favor of legislation that limits this relationship.
Now it should not be hard to understand that for me, if I've lived a fine life all this time without Facebook, any kind of argument that "not joining Facebook is not a realistic option" will not receive my sympathies.
The basic data collection is fairly transparent: Everything you provide to them (content, contacts, etc) is available to them. No user should be surprised that they utilize this information. It is the default assumption for any online service. If you use your Facebook account to log into other sites, it should be obvious that Facebook has that info. With regards to the more "shadowy" aspects (e.g. cookies tracking you across sites, etc), a point could be made, but honestly none of this is shadowy any more - it's been in the press repeatedly for years. Once again, if the users don't care, I don't see how it can be "objectively bad".
People tend to invoke the user's ignorance: Most users are not tech savvy and cannot be expected to know how all this works - so they cannot reasonably know they are making a bad bargain. I am not sympathetic to this. The reason is that in all the years Facebook has been in existence, I have talked to and educated many average folks about the potential downsides of giving a private company so much information about you. Everyone I spoke to was quite OK with the whole concept. Not one person felt it was problematic. So not only do I not have a reason to think FB is "objectively bad", I cannot even invoke social proof! Whatever bad people keep claiming is coming out of FB is something most of the population does not think is bad.
I have few sympathies for the (very few) people who are whining about it, because their behavior is similar to irresponsible adults who continually make bad decisions and have lives wrecked as a result, and then expect to get bailed out. Like not buying earthquake insurance in an earthquake zone and then demanding compensation when they lose their house.
Facebook did not become what they did by being clever against their users. They got there by working with them. Any discussion of issues about Facebook without implicating the users who happily helped them is biased.
Finally, and perhaps the most controversial part of my comment: Let's not kid ourselves. People are upset about this because it helped Trump more than any real concern about our privacy. Had a more likeable candidate (Obama, etc) used data from CA to help win an election, I would expect a fraction of the coverage this is getting right now. In fact, I think Obama did heavily utilize these services in 2008 and 2012 - just not as effectively as Trump's campaign did. If anything, Trump's campaign was merely more effective.