Sure I'll admit that it is not literally packaging private info into a file and selling it. But it sure is asymptotically approaching it.
Your argument is analogous to saying Microsoft didn't really have a monopoly because 3% of computers used Linux and OSX. Plus, how does F8 instant personalization work? I doubt it is solely based on a 1 pixel tracking image.
And I do hold up AdSense to the same level of scrutiny. While it also has privacy issues, it is not of the same level. It does not force browsers to become advertisers to their friends, revealing their purchasing and browsing habits. Your friends do not know that you visited a certain website or bought a certain product and can link you by your name, age, friends, and likes/dislikes and organizations you belong to.
That is the sole reason why people think Facebook can beat Google.
You want to make some sort create some sort of moral equivalence between literally selling user data and changing user privacy defaults. Maybe there is some moral equivalent, but I don't think so.
In any case, the way you made your case is by lying.
An anti-US activist might want to claim a moral equivalence between the casualties of the Iraq war and mass executions. But, to say that the US executed 100k Iraqis is lying. That is an analogous to your argument.
You are really stretching it if you are trying to say Facebook isn't trying to exploit private data to the fullest extent possible.
A more apt analogy using your theme would be this: Saddam Hussein didn't kill anyone, his soldiers did. Only a pedant would be worried about the literal meaning without looking at the big picture.
Comments
Sure I'll admit that it is not literally packaging private info into a file and selling it. But it sure is asymptotically approaching it.
Your argument is analogous to saying Microsoft didn't really have a monopoly because 3% of computers used Linux and OSX. Plus, how does F8 instant personalization work? I doubt it is solely based on a 1 pixel tracking image.
And I do hold up AdSense to the same level of scrutiny. While it also has privacy issues, it is not of the same level. It does not force browsers to become advertisers to their friends, revealing their purchasing and browsing habits. Your friends do not know that you visited a certain website or bought a certain product and can link you by your name, age, friends, and likes/dislikes and organizations you belong to.
That is the sole reason why people think Facebook can beat Google.
No it isn't analogous to that at all.
You want to make some sort create some sort of moral equivalence between literally selling user data and changing user privacy defaults. Maybe there is some moral equivalent, but I don't think so.
In any case, the way you made your case is by lying. An anti-US activist might want to claim a moral equivalence between the casualties of the Iraq war and mass executions. But, to say that the US executed 100k Iraqis is lying. That is an analogous to your argument.
You are really stretching it if you are trying to say Facebook isn't trying to exploit private data to the fullest extent possible.
A more apt analogy using your theme would be this: Saddam Hussein didn't kill anyone, his soldiers did. Only a pedant would be worried about the literal meaning without looking at the big picture.
Did I say that?