I don't use the word "evil" pretty much for anybody, but I think the business model is at the very least screwed up. If it's a valuable service, why do they have to be so shady? I'd happily pay facebook $10/month or whatever (I can't imagine they make more than that on ads on me) to use their service. The problem is that they make it seem free, and people just don't understand the extent to which it tracks you. It's the same business model car dealerships use when they try to steer you towards negotiating in terms of monthly payments to avoid your focusing on the bottom line cost--you can get more out of people when you hide the ball about how much your service actually costs them.
Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook?
There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?
1) The constant refrain from many in the tech community of "I would pay to use service X and therefore having a paywall is a legitimate business model" frustrates me to no end, because it's such a "moderately wealthy tech person from the West" point of view held by those with the disposable income to spend on these services. If Facebook's mission is to "make the world more open and connected," it would be impossible to accomplish that if you're charging some rando in Uganda who is accessing Facebook on a 'feature' phone, or worse, the equivalent of their monthly or yearly income. Further, if you look at the political discourse in the middle east that is occurring predominantly on FB and Twitter, it would be ass-backward (and truly "evil") to charge these people to have that discourse.
2) Indeed the point you make about non-techie friends is relevant but you miss the point -- most people don't care about these issues if the result is an amazingly useful tool. So what if ads are correlated with usage: god-forbid you see something interesting that you may want to buy or is relevant to your tastes. And honestly it's no more true that FB 'gives' your data away any more than Google 'gives' away your Gmail/Gdrive/Picassa/etc. data.
Well, to the extent that Google+ is a wannabe Facebook, it can't be any better, right?
Without getting into an argument of which is worse, I think ultimately Facebook is more dangerous. Facebook has tremendous network effects and lock-down effects. I can switch from Google to DDG easily, but as long as my family in Bangladesh uses Facebook to post pictures of my nieces and nephews, my ability to switch away from Facebook is limited.
And I don't personally care--I'm not a private person and anything you want to know about me is probably on the internet. But I'm making an informed decision (within the constraints of the fact that Google and Facebook don't disclose exactly how they use your information, but I assume the worst). In my experience, most people who use Google and Facebook aren't.
Don't get me wrong. I think this stuff is useful. But there needs to be more transparency and more restraint than there is. A ban on collecting data on minors would be a start.
You know advertisers collect data about what you watch on TV? Certain channels cater to certain type of people so ad buyers would buy ads based on demographics of a certain show (for example, Shark Tank has one of the highest avg income audiences in the country, so it would make sense for Mercedes to advertise when the show airs) .
People seem to forget that it was the original targeted advertising. You subliminally got targeted by demographic specific ads based on the type of shows you were interested in. It just so happens that the way Google and Facebook do it is way more high tech.
The data goes into their platform, they dont' sell it. I think maintaining a healthy paranoia is good and we should pressure the companies to be better with our data. However, as long as they maintain security as a strong value, I think it'll be ok. At least I myself personally don't mind them holding my data as long as it is secure and private to me.
Indeed, my non-technical friends have only the vaguest idea that their usage has a correlation with the ads (Facebook isn't exactly full-disclosure about how their targeted ad model works). This is especially true with kids. You think my 13 year old nephew understands the privacy implications of using Facebook?
There is also the worry of what happens when Facebook stops being "the good guys" (which is a possibility for any corporation). What happens when the constant push to meet analyst expectations causes them to monetize user data in more and more insidious ways? I don't think anyone thought at first that the credit card companies were "evil", but the whole credit card/credit score mafia is doing legitimately devestating things to many peoples' lives now. Some people can't get jobs because of their credit scores. What happens when Facebook starts selling user data to employers doing background checks? Do we just assume that Facebook is full of "people like us" so they would never do that?