Ugg, what a silly article. I am a non-user of facebook and a dedicated civil libertarian, and this article is ridiculous speculation. Undoubtedly Facebook wants connections and influence in government, all big corporations do. The connection to the Trusted Identities in Cyberspace plans is purely imaginary. With so many real vital issues of online privacy and security being contested right now, hypothetical conspiracy theories like this are an unnecessary distraction.
Yeah, I'm actually more ok with Facebook lobbying than I am with 90% of the lobbying that already happens. At least their product doesn't kill people or cause a lot of pollution.
I think that this article is a bit short-sighted. Facebook has a massive, massive network. I should know - I briefly interned on their TechOps team (and switched teams partway through). Their slice of the internet is truly massive, and worldwide. The amount of bandwidth consumed by the Photos product alone, much less the rest of Facebook's properties, is gargantuan.
Now take a look back and notice just how deeply the telephone companies influence politics. Do I even need to provide examples? Think about Net Neutrality. Facebook doesn't just want it, it depends on it to keep its costs down and its site fast.
Explain to me, how can they battle this without having the ear of Washington? It's a good strategic move, and I expect that far more of their clout will be focused on maintaining the status quo than federally mandating Facebook use. As an organization with a great deal of hackers (as in hacker news 'hacker'), I think that enforcing a global ID would face major resistance even within the company. Far more plausible is that they're looking for influence to keep the internet open, as that is in their best interests.
> Think about Net Neutrality. Facebook doesn't just want it, it depends on it to keep its costs down and its site fast.
When they are really profitable, they can afford to pay some extra cost to make sure that facebook is well reachable everywhere, while the rest of the Internet is slow. (Exaggerated, yes).
So maybe they have some motivation to enforce net neutrality now, but will they stall have it in five years?
Exactly. In fact, I'd say as an entrenched incumbent, they have every reason now to oppose net neutrality. They can afford to make deals with the telcos and pay more for the bandwidth in order to keep the upstart competition out of the race.
Not seeing it. They're so entrenched that slower access only penalizes the user experience. ISPs peer with Facebook because there's so much bandwidth both up and down that it's in their best interest, too. Giving ISPs more leverage to charge only makes it easier for a worse product to succeed on a basis other than merit.
While I get it I don't really see the big fuss. Facebook knows as much as you choose to tell it. I choose to tell it nothing. Yes you can infer soft networks from the email address books they've harvested etcetc but really there's nothing in those that can't pieced together if someone wants to anyway. As far as I'm concerned Facebook's a busted flush unless you want to advertise to a slightly below average income demographic with too much time to play mundane online games and from a professional perspective a FB message or email address is about as serious as a hotmail.com one. The inevitable social network market fragmentation is already underway, I'm excited to see what it brings.
facebook also knows as much as your 'friends' choose to tell it about you unless you're vigilant and remove their posts to your wall or untag yourself and so forth.
Several commenters on soshable.com and HN say something along the lines of "no biggie - I can just delete my profile when FB becomes a problem."
But here's the thing: You probably can't delete your profile. As far as I remember, Facebook didn't even have a deletion feature in the beginning, only a deactivation feature.
Now there's a deletion feature, but can you be absolutely sure that FB doesn't save your info even if they tell you your profile has been deleted?
Think I'm paranoid? Think again: Several times I've tried deleting status updates, and while I get a deletion confirmation, some or all of the "deleted" status messages show up again some time later.
FB became a problem for me some time ago, and I soft-deleted (deactivated) my account. There is a deletion feature now.
There's a big difference between a bug in the deletion of status updates right now, and permanent deletion which takes a couple days. Tape backups will always be around, though.
I am reassured by facebook's enormous, gigantic attack surface. I am sure that anonymous would be able to wreak absolute ungodly havoc upon it if they decided to.
Facebook has stated on numerous occasions that they want to be a central ID authority, so the article is less speculation than simply extending the Facebook game plan to the next rung. I currently recommend my site users sign in through Facebook due to the depth of their instant personalization features, but may offer Twitter or other access as well in order to calm users who may rightfully fear a company that does not respect anonymous speech. Even though I like Facebook's features and respect their technology, I must hear my customers concerns first.
I can't say it's among my top concerns in the world right now. The quest for political influence isn't automatically a crime. Facebook obviously has a big interest in FCC policy for example. If they choose to opt out of the political games it puts them at a disadvantage especially when big telecom is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Ironically when it comes to issues like net neutrality Facebook is actually one of the few big tech companies that doesn't have any major partnerships with carriers to consider. I find the whole national-ID angle implausible but let's say it was true. Do we feel better if Google or Microsoft, both with considerable Washington connections, are the ones lobbying for a national-ID jackpot? In a strange counterintuitive way more competition in the high-tech influence peddling business is probably a good thing. Better than just conceding policy influence to Microsoft, Google and the other big established players isn't it? I sort of feel like Americans have been deeply naive about how much influence big corporations have and now they're confronted with it on a daily basis and it's a big revelation? It's basically always been this way, or worse, and we managed. No need to get terrified over it now.
I don't see how this makes Facebook worse than other corporations. Isn't trying to influence the goverment (and probably partially succeeding in it) the norm?
The Supreme Court has declared that corporations have many of the same rights as individuals. We fleshly individuals, however, do not have the same power as mega-corporations, nor does our 'free speech' have the same same power as 'free speech' promulgated/backed by a $100B corporation, nor will my campaign contribution have the influence as a corporation's (left-wing, right-wing, whatever). Is it inappropriate to be worried?
As a corporation becomes bigger, it becomes a target. If they don't have a lobby team in Washington, they will just be pounded on by other political factors (including other corporations) until they do. See the case of Microsoft, which until the (in)famous DoJ investigation had no lobby team. Afterwards, donations started streaming and their lawyers set up offices in Washington.
The Supreme Court has declared that corporations have many of the same rights as individuals.
Assuming you are referring to Citizens United, that is not what the court decided.
The court decided that individuals have the right to both peaceably assembly and freedom of speech. In particular, it's not an XOR - the government can't say "because you have peaceably assembled (in corporate or other form), you can no longer speak freely."
Citizens United was solely about the right of individuals to speak, and to use their property (corporations) for speech, as well as the right of other individuals to hear all ideas.
The slightly less Orwellian version than imagined here seems pretty likely to me. If there ever is an online national ID system, I'll bet 100 to 1 that you'll be able to port your facebook identity directly across to it.
That said, there's an interesting Silicon Valley goes to Washington -- courtesy of its Harvard roots -- story here -- it may be that Zuck is just that much more forward thinking than the rest of the nerds, and wants in on the Washington game in a proactive way, rather than as a mission of last resort when dragged there by some other group, a-la the MPAA.
That would, in my mind, bookend the 'geeks' era of technology companies -- 30 years or so from long-haired off the grid types hacking Apple II software in shacks outside of Big Sur to 20-something billionaires hiring up Washington talent.
If I understand my major industrial history correctly, that's about right, maybe a bit slower than the oil industry. Look for Biotech to get smart on this in the next 10 or 15 years?
From a cursory read, I reckon it's about the ``National Internet ID''. You know how governments tend to botch big IT projects? Now imagine being forced to use one such insecure `solution' for every act of communication over internet.
A national internet ID is ahead of our time. Until our grandparents are ready to commit to such a thing, (maybe even the 40+ generation) something like it wont happen.
It actually does not matter if i do not use facebook. Why? , because not using facebook affects me anyway. That is the reason why arguments like your do not have any value for me.
Facebook is doing all it can to lock users in, but in the end everything revolves around a single user just saying that he/she doesn't care anymore and is out.
If the circle of 10 of my closest friends leave Facebook, I would probably leave as well. Many great services have fallen before Facebook.
this article and this comment thread are both infuriatingly conspiratorial.
Facebook may become a defacto standard for an internet ID but its power lies in having people willingly share information about their lives. This would cease immediately if the US government mandated it as a form of ID etc. Which kind of contradicts the company's goals... no?
we are in for a really rude awakening when it comes to the political pull a site like facebook can really have.
Here we have a company with a very very large cross section of just about every culture and country on earth. It has massive amounts of personal. intimate. detailed data on its users, their relationships, their interests and activities.
We have a CEO who is young, idealistic, ego-centric and in certain ways, impressionable. Not in a petty sense - but in a way where providing the opportunity to feel as though he really is changing the world, he will assume that he is -- and for the better. The problem is that, I believe, he (and facebook) will be manipulated.
Regardless of Mark's ideals and lofty goals - politics is politics. It is a system of control in its basest form. Facebook is the perfect venn between social utility and totalitarian encroachment.
Sadly - the social utility for its users currently outweighs its encroachment and it will be ratcheted further into a position where we cannot separate our daily activities from it.
Mark Zuckerberg is the #1 target for manipulation of every intelligence agency and influence centre on earth.
His 26 year old mind is up against the intelligence apparatus of multiple nation states that want to use his possessions.
He has no chance. All of his meetings with various power brokers and law enforcement representatives are well known. The fight is over. He's a unwitting puppet. All of the information that reaches him is carefully monitored by tens if not hundreds of professionals in the business of information trafficking and control.
Something with the value of Facebook either survives through rigid ideological principles upheld by a mesh of ideologues, or it falls to outside influence.
I think Google's built in iconoclastic values gave it some level of inoculation against government influence.
But Facebook has no values aside from power and money. Zuck is the classic power monger geek, a true successor to Bill Gates, except Bill Gates was not nearly as much of an obvious target because the stakes were not understood at the time.
Note that these information agencies that you refer to are in competition. That makes manipulating Zuckerburg a lot more difficult, doesn't it?
Also, his '26 year old mind' is not alone. He's not the only guy that wants to support his ideals.
I'm not saying that he can resist manipulation, but I don't think it's as easy as the parent of my comment makes it seem at all. If anything, it's a war for Zuck; it's not a war on Zuck.
For example, the US and say, North Korea are not going to be working together for control of Zuckerburg; they're going to be competing for it.
"Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS. People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks."
So when did Zuckerberg develop these "lofty goals" and "ideals"?
Is it so difficult to believe that that was a joke?
I can see myself making that sort of joke in person, but after seeing what's happened to Zuckerburg, I would treat the internet as a press conference.
Zuckerburg has been described as socially awkward more times than he's been described -- you can't be sure that he wasn't just going too far with a joke. That's very common for the stereotypical logical type -- doubly when he's talking to a friend that would be fine with the joke.
But suppose it were not a joke. This guy has changed the world forever in an incredibly short period of time. I'd be surprised if he didn't change his philosophy somewhat, if not drastically.
Few people have to adjust to being one of the most influential human beings in the world, especially in their mid-twenties.
To be clear, when I said "Regardless of Mark's ideals and lofty goals - politics is politics." -- I was in no way implying that he had lofty goals and ideals that were good... quite to the contrary.
I do not and shall not ever have an account on the book for many reasons - my distrust of the founder and company ethos are but just two...
I think that there is a clear argument that intelligence agencies have a substantial home field advantage when dealing with business.
Consider the homegrown competition in China. Xiaonei/Renren is pretty much a facebook clone with 70M+ users, and Sina Weibo is a microblogging service ala Twitter.
Some say that playing ball with the oligarchs can provide substantial access to capital. Interesting that they have enjoyed unprecedented private investment and valuations.
Agreed, that was exactly my thought as well - thanks for sharing them so succinctly.
Especially regarding Gates -- We can obviously see the outcome of his position these days given his efforts to give his wealth away.
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to wonder about that dark room that people get pulled into when they reach a certain level of finance/power/influence and are informed about "the way things are" and this is how you will play the game if you and everyone you care about doesnt want to die in such a tragic plane crash...
It started innocently enough. Everyone is on it. Everyone. In the more than 20 years since it was founded - and now - daily life just could not be managed without it. Sure, it started innocently enough. Connect with your friends, post your pics, keep up with the fam. Yeah, that was then.
It wasn't too long before they started adding features. Adding value they called it. Extending your circle. Enabling you they'd say. Yeah, in the same way a spiders web is beautiful. The pattern and symmetry, glistening like shiny gossamer art. Its beauty pulls you in - you don't realize at first as you touch it, that it sticks. No, more than sticks - you become imbued with it. The more you move it wraps around you, encasing you... entombing you. For the data-mining black widow to come and suck the marketable value right out of you, your connections... every aspect of your life is now a product.
Classified, organized, tagged, sorted, tracked, pegged, followed, poked, monetized, labeled... owned is what you are. A commodity. A small spec among 3.5 billion in the user base of the book.
That's what it was these days... just simply 'the book'.
Everyone knows - everyone is aware. They are all in the book. Not even a page, or a word either... more like a letter. A single letter. An iconographic digital hologram of the total sum of your parts - all wrapped up real nice in a uniform singular profitable little package called your user profile. Displayed and viewed and consumed and tracked billions of times over. With more than thirty trillion page views per month, the cancerous blue and white digital encapsulation of the human soul was now blazoned across innumerable screens as nearly half the worlds population interacted on the book - more than 20% of the worlds population on the book at any given moment.
A study, one of the countless to be sure, said that now more than 90% of real human interactions occurred through the book. What does that even mean anymore... real? Real human interactions? Through the book? how is that even possible.
It was no wonder that in the last few years the backlash has switched to resisting this unexpected strangle-hold on the human condition. Most never saw it coming... happily going along with every new feature update, privacy change, "enhancement". MZ was repeating himself a lot these days... except his frame of reference had gotten bigger. Where years ago the book was likened to that which only came along to change humans interactions every 100 years... now his statements were 10 fold. MZ thinks of himself as the embodiment of the singularity... whatever that means. Some fucking fantasy of a long dead cybervisionary that couldn't recognize the makings of our current prison I'm sure. Fuck him.
Looking around looks a lot more like binary slavery than any form of singularity. None of our old problems have been solved - in fact the book has only made things worse. After it became a "platform for governance and outreach" we, people like - those who really see, knew. We knew what this meant. Game fucking over.
This era of hyper connectivity and ultra social awareness was supposed to usher in some sort of Utopian orgasm -- one in which MZ would be carried on the shoulders of the masses to stand next to fantastical human saviors like Jesus. Fictional allusions to stellar bodies be damned!
The only problem is that most of the world is too busy. Feeding their attention into the black hole of the book to notice... or care I guess.
With ubiquitous access thanks to the assimilation of the largest global fiber network a few years ago, the book was now able to offer complete and total "free" access via the acquired goog-net.
Years ago, when Athena rolled out - it was a huge success. Welcomed into every neighborhood - direct, very high speed fiber access in every home was quickly made into a "right". The model was seen as our manifest destiny, held in a 62-micron translucent hair that fed us with more 1' and 0's to each person in a single day than the entire digital output of the globe in 1999.
Such an umbilical cannot be bad right!
The only problem is we misjudged the direction of the flow!
Now, with goog-net reaching everywhere, but the book being the only lens into the tubes -- our minds are warped. We are a most technically advanced - yet wholly dependant child-like civilization.
A mutant.
If its not on the platform. Not "in the book" they say -- how can it be trusted - how could it succeed? How can you expect to be relevant?
HOW CAN IT NOT BE RELEVANT!
Slaves! All of them!
This is why we act! This is what is needed. Who are we? Who the fuck were we? Not this! Surely not this. It is time....
Talking of books, I think we should all (re)read Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" [1], inspiring and prophetic. The book that coined the term 'computer worm', maybe parts of the 'remedy' are written within...
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
