vmarks
About
- Username
- vmarks
- Joined
- Visits
- 77
- Last Active
- Roles
- editor
- Points
- 905
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 762
Reactions
-
Mark Zuckerberg calls Tim Cook's anti-Facebook retort 'glib,' defends ad-based model
Nielsen ratings did come from somewhere, though. Advertisers weren't just throwing dollars at TV spend, they were working on spending on time slots when they knew people would be watching, and more than that, when they knew their target audience would be watching. Soap operas are called that because it was that time of day when the housewife was at home, and they could advertise soap to her.maestro64 said:At one time TV and Radio was always free to everyone, no matter how much you made, everyone was treated the same, media broadcast did not discriminate based on your social economic background, If you could buy a radio or TV or share one with your neighbor you can see free content. This all was supported by advertising. however, at no time did the media companies know anything about you what you did each day, how you spent your time and money.
So Zuck is claiming there are people who can not afford his product and services unless he know everything about them and then use their formation to target information at them which may or may not be in their own best interest.
Zuck is really trying hard to get this to blow over, he is hoping in a few weeks people will forget and go back to what they always have been doing which is sharing their information with Zuck so he can make lots of money. If that happen I guess i will jump back in on the stock and also make money off people giving up their privacy.
-
If you don't want to delete your Facebook account, here's how to cut back
Unless you can script Safari to do the job, your choices are few. Chrome doesn't track you unless it's open. Yes, you have to sign into the Chrome web store to get the web app. Nothing is perfect. Provided you don't let Chrome save passwords for you, and abandon it as soon as you're done, you're not taking aim at the other foot - but you have to decide your level of risk for yourself.sunman42 said:Using a Chrome app to delete Facebook data is more than little like taking aim squarely at the other foot, after you've blown off the first one. Who slurps more data than Facebook ever dreamt of doing? Google/Alphabet, that's who.
Also, am I remembering Facebook's T&C wrong, or don't they keep your data for a year after you've said you want to delete it, in case you change your mind and want to return to the fold?You're not exactly correct on FB's retaining the data. They used to only allow you to deactivate the account, and kept the data so that it would all come back if you made one wrong move and used FB for anything (comments on some external webpage, etc.) Since they started allowing you to delete the account (more than just deactivate it), they say they're actually deleting the data, and it won't come back. They do say to allow as much as 90 days for a full deletion based on how much you have stored with them. Whether or not you believe them is another matter.
-
If you don't want to delete your Facebook account, here's how to cut back
Good point.ireland said:How do we know the security of this extension?
I should have mentioned that, as well as the idea of disabling and removing the extension once used. After all, if you've gotten all the data out, you don't need the extension again.
Here's what makes me feel comfortable about the extension:- you never provide the extension any login information.
- you have to navigate to your Facebook activity log in order for it to be able to function at all.
- all it's doing is scripting the page to select and delete / unlike / etc. versus the very manual clicking of Edit>Delete, one by one for each item.
-
AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon reveal plan for new phone-number based app authenticati...
Apple does a near-perfect job of preventing malware on the user's device.dewme said:
I totally agree. But that's only one aspect of the larger problem. Another part of the problem that these companies are trying to solve is to block nefarious apps from getting on to their customer's devices in the first place. As we know, Apple does a pretty good, but not perfect, job with this already on iOS and to a lesser degree on macOS. Other systems are not so great. With more always-connected devices and computers being on the horizon these companies want to get out ahead of what could be a big impediment to their business model. In many ways what they are proposing only further validates the benefits that Apple has with the App Store / "walled garden" model. Apple staked their future to the walled garden more than a decade ago and has always had to defend. Now these companies are suddenly seeing the light in terms of the benefits the walled garden provides and are trying to capture some of its qualities without having to do all of the work and make the investments that Apple has made. Keep in mind that they are only talking security and authentication. There's nothing in there about fitness, quality, usability, compatibility, etc., which are all values that Apple provides. They just want to be able to tell their customers - "this app probably won't kill you." It may still totally suck, but that's not something they care about. Apple cares.thisisasj said:As is practice today, if an app requires authentication you disagree with, don't use the app. It's like every app that requires you to log in to Facebook first: I simply don't use them. They've lost a customer by taking away my choice.
Google does a pretty good, but not perfect, job of it.
Microsoft did a fantastic job of it, by deleting their app store, and then Windows Phone.
Tizen likewise does a great job by having no customers.
There is no practical exploit in the wild that requires this nonsense.
This is about the carriers trying to make themselves gatekeepers again. We know what happens when they're gatekeepers. They have control, and they use it ostensibly to protect their network, by crippling the user's ability to use it. When all updates for Android devices had to be approved by individual carriers who took months to evaluate and approve them, users were actively harmed by not getting timely security updates and features. It trained the device manufacturers to not bother with updates, because the carriers were simply too rigid as gatekeepers to be useful. They lost that control with Apple and Google over apps, and have lost it with Google over updates for the most part. When they have this control, they use it as a weapon against consumers.
-
Amazon acquires smart doorbell manufacturer Ring, HomeKit still on the way [u]
Amazon's plan has been to try and have amazon delivery people unlock the door and deliver inside the home. They're doing that with the Yale lock they have a partnership with, and were attempting to do it when they wanted to buy August Lock (and their doorbell camera.)
They're working on their own courier service. Their own couriers who have access to their customers' homes, to deliver their packages for their customers. I'm intentionally phrasing this with the possessive form, because they think their customers don't have privacy concerns with them doing any of this.
You can set up a homekit device in the Home App, and not need to have the devices' app downloaded or signed into. This does prevent you from getting firmware updates, which can be required when an OS update breaks compatibility.
