zlacker

[return to "Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated"]
1. allear+32[view] [source] 2022-01-06 00:32:20
>>karlzt+(OP)
It's worse than that. FB maintains "phantom accounts" for everybody whether you have a FB account or not.

I've never had a FB account, but some years ago I got an email from FB listing a number of my friends and family and saying, "All these people have FB accounts. Wouldn't you like to join FB?"

The email included a reply option labeled "don't contact me again," which I chose and then replied. But a few months later I got the same invitation.

Needless to say, I found that to be deeply disturbing, and it confirmed my determination to never subscribe to FB. Later I learned about the phantom accounts. I'm sure FB maintains a dossier on me to this day.

◧◩
2. saddle+od[view] [source] 2022-01-06 01:55:42
>>allear+32
Facebook does not maintain "accounts" on non-users in a meaningful way and they have stated this multiple times to multiple regulators [1]. An email campaign being sent to an intersection of a bunch of users's contacts is not evidence of "phantom accounts".

[1] https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/06/fina...

◧◩◪
3. tw04+fe[view] [source] 2022-01-06 02:02:01
>>saddle+od
You mean the Facebook that paid $4.9 Billion to protect their CEO from government scrutiny? The facebook that stated multiple times to multiple regulators that they would not use whatsapp user data for ad serving purposes.... and then they did it anyway?

Pardon my skepticism if your only source of truth is "Facebook told regulators".

◧◩◪◨
4. saddle+Yn[view] [source] 2022-01-06 03:07:40
>>tw04+fe
The choice is between multiple regulatory investigations not actioning this specific issue over multiple years of the some of the most intense global scrutiny on a company in recent history verses believing somebody's tangentially related anecdote.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. kjells+Bx[view] [source] 2022-01-06 04:25:37
>>saddle+Yn
You might be right or wrong, i dont know, bjt i can say with great certainty that a regulator doing nothing in the face of multiple credible accusations has no relationship to whether those accusations are true or not. Sometimes the regulator is overloaded/backlogged, sometimes they have been captured by the industry they regulate, sometimes there is pressure applied to not investigate, and do on. But it need not mean tbat there was no wrongdoing.
[go to top]