Economists study what happens when people stop using Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.calnewport.com/blog/2020/02/29/top-economists-study-what-happens-when-you-stop-using-facebook/ <comment><USER2> Related to reducing media exposure and the attendant increase in the sense of wellbeing, this is a lovely article by the Serbian / American poet Charles Simic, about discovering how his dad had attained "Olympian calm":

"Like others growing old, I had expected that after everything I had lived through and learned in my life, I would attain a state of Olympian calm and would regard the news of the day with amusement, like a clip from a bad old movie I had seen far too many times. It hasn't happened to me yet. My late father, in the final year of his life, claimed that he finally found that long-sought serenity by no longer reading the papers and watching television. Even then, and I was thirty years younger than he, I knew what he meant. What devotees of sadomasochism do to their bodies is nothing compared to the torments that those addicted to the news and political commentary inflict on their minds almost every hour of the day.

My own inordinate interest in what the lunatics are up to in every corner of our planet has to do with my childhood. When I was three years old in Belgrade, German bombs started falling on my head. By the time I was seven, I was accustomed to seeing dead people lying in the street, or hung from telephone poles, or thrown into ditches with their throats cut. Like any child growing up in an occupied city during wartime, I didn't think much about it. I was as serene then as I will ever be, sitting among the ruins smoking my first cigarette, riding on a Russian tank with a friend, or watching our school janitor hang the portraits of Marx, Stalin and Marshal Tito in our classroom after the liberation."

[https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/12/05/goodbye- serenity/](https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/12/05/goodbye-serenity/)

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure this distinguishes between wellbeing and post-traumatic stress disorder.

<comment><USER4> Detachment has its place in mental health but that is more when realizing "this is bullshit and doesn't matter". Like keeping up with the Joneses. If you don't actually enjoy any of that or find it useful just saying "fuck that and fuck you" to the social pressures is being anomalously sane.

To be honest all of the 1950s Zeitgeist reeks of suppressed trauma addressed in an unhealthy way. The whole lawn obsession reached a zenith from homesickness in Europe and POW camps - and that is just one of the milder examples. Kids ended up taking this state as a deeply unhealthy norm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I totally quit television about a year ago, and it had a very noticeable positive impact on me. I also mostly quit Facebook with the end of last year. I say mostly, because I still use its event calendar, and occasionally check my stream. But I significantly reduced the amount of comments I leave on that platform.

I feel like, while the criticism of FaceBook, Twitter, Reddit and co is pretty much warranted, we managed to push aside the biggest time sink we already have since the 60s. TV, and Netflix, for that matter, is wasting our time since many many years.

<comment><USER6> I stopped watching regular TV around 2005 due to the influx of "reality-tv" and other crappy formats. What I used to watch before was real documentaries on discovery and it's family of channels.

Now I just watch Festival of Science or Royal Institution lectures on YouTube and some anime on wakanim :)

There are also a lot of real in-class lectures filmed on various topic on YouTube that I find very nice.

I don't miss regular TV at all.

I quit facebook around 2012 (deleted and purged the accont by waiting 6 months) and I don't miss that either. I still have contact with the friends that I care about via phone, I just don't look at their fake lives on facebook anymore.

<comment><USER7> I vaguely think I stopped watching TV, modulo Netflix, around the same time as you. Now when I see it in a trucker's break room or similar, it strikes me as shockingly vacuous, and so filled with commercials.

And now I'm living the irony, driving a truck and hauling all that stuff that the TV is waving in front of us. Just as some of you are living the irony, spending your hard earned educations building the infrastructure that implements the waving.

"Now:" I'm pulling a trailer from Illinois to Ohio, filled with "cereal, dry," from a maker to a big box chain's distribution center. Eat up! Eat!

<comment><USER8> To digress, I'm curious about your life as a truck driver. What do you do with all the time in the truck? Podcasts? shortwave radio? And what are your thoughts about the industry as a whole?

<comment><USER7> Gonna have to answer later today, I want to be further on before I relax and think. (And I guess that's the first part of the answer.)

<comment><USER7> I was a software dev and SWQA since 1988, with a few years taken off in the middle to deal with some externalities.

I rage-quit my last SWQA job, then discovered that a 60+ year old B player ought not to have done that. And so I drive.

What do I do with all the time in the truck? Drive, watch the road, watch out for you all (you all are cray, and are probably gonna die, I'm just sayin'). Watch my time from various perspectives: time/miles to pickup, time/miles to delivery, time left on my allowed driving time, gallons of diesel remaining, will I make it on time, do I have to warn of late arrival, should I pull off and shut down for wind, rain, snow, ice, fatigue, when will the local troopers open the highway to trucks again, am I speeding or following too close, am I holding people up behind me, _are you f 'ing tailgating me_, are my brakes on fire, what's going on way up there (I can see pretty far with my head ten feet off the ground) ...

I don't care what you're doing in your car, and I virtually never look, except once in awhile I'll look at your head (or search my spider sense) to see if you're paying attention. To the road. Not to your phone.

When I'm not doing that stuff: I don't have a CB radio. Sometimes I don't play any audio and just think, or enjoy the scenery. It's an incredibly beautiful and interesting country. Sometimes I chase NPR across the radio. Wyoming is a pretty good state for NPR, because they have translators all over. Once in awhile I'll drive through a college or tribal radio station that really does just play what they feel like, those are good.

Sometimes Pandora. I've been trying to listen to podcasts, but it's not a great experience. I can't seem to manage podcasts via Pandora or Spotify very well. I don't like pre-downloading, I'd like to just listen via a stream (most recently VLC on Android, bluetooth to my radio, but the casts often just end in the middle (lost cell signal?) and go to the next one).

My thoughts on the industry as a whole are, I can only see a tiny sliver of the industry. There seems to be an infinite number of ways to get stuff from here to there, and all I really know is working as a "solo" (not part of a two person team), "company driver" (not an owner-operator) for one of the large truck companies.

When I started two years ago there was a huge trucker shortage. Now some companies have gone out of business, but "they" say that it'll pick up again soon. I believe large companies are still hiring, because industry turnover is huge. Lots of people decide they don't like it. I like it a lot.

It's a really good job for me, as I'm not very sociable. I'll go months without going home (divorced, one grown son). Most long distance drivers take 3 or 4 days a month in "home time." Some drivers are regional or local and they're naturally home more often and more regularly.

I drive a 2017 Kenworth T-680, 15 liter straight-six Cummins engine, 10 speed Eton automatic. I mostly pull "dry vans," the 53 foot closed rectangular trailers that you mostly see. Sometimes I'll pull a "reefer," refrigerated trailer, basically the same as a dry van but you also have to pay attention to the reefer operation and temperatures (multiple compartments inside the trailer).

I typically have about an hour of time at the end of the day, and an hour in the morning. Sometimes a little more. Rarely a lot more, when the company hasn't found any freight for me to haul. The longest I've spent without freight has been a weekend, and that's rare. I only get paid for miles driven in service of an assigned trip.

During my typical two +/\- hours/day I eat, clean, read, communicate with the fam. I've written hundreds of emails home, with pictures, and I'm trying to clean some of those up to get them posted at a location to be named later. In my free time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me the greatest improvement came from stopping using Twitter and Reddit rather than Facebook or Instagram (I quit using all four within the last year, Youtube is the only social media service that I'm still regularly consuming, I'd like to quit that too), of course this is based on my personal situation and the way I personally use all of those media. In my specific case I have the impression that Twitter and Reddit are somehow more addictive and they used to have the largest detrimental impact on my mental health. With Facebook, that impact is moderate and with Instagram I would say almost non existent.

<comment><USER10> Same here. At least in Facebook you mostly communicate with people you've chosen to accept as friends, and know who they really are.

Reddit and Twitter on the other hand show all the bad sides of anonymity to the fullest. Way too much blind tribalism and conflict seeking, few adults actually capable of real discussion. So it's not only a waste of time, but one that gives you a bad mood as well.

<comment><USER11> The echo chamber is real. I went cold turkey on Twitter after using it for 10 years and gaining about 6k followers.

Twitter was the #1 source of left-wing extremist noise in my life. I'm sure there were/are right-wing extremists on that platform too, but one seemed to appear in my algorithmic feed more than the other. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias. Who knows!

Good riddance.

<comment><USER12> Both side's on it. In fact there's no sides. Just that Twitter is competent at removing constructive elements and distilling hatred/rage/anger for profit and it's working against you.

There are few ways to strip out some of their 10-year "improvement" and oh how deserted it looks under there...

<comment><USER11> I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I'm quite convinced certain subcultures are overrepresented on Twitter, and that while Twitter is open to all, that doesn't mean it's a representative cross-section of the general population.

I think this is true of most social networks, and is more obvious in certain cases, _e.g._ , Tumblr.

<comment><USER13> The internet attracts people who are marginalized in meatspace. Queer people and neonazis are both marginalized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if people will ever quit Facebook.. I mean after all the stuff that's happened and they still haven't.

We had a discussion about this recently in my Spanish class. Someone asked me for my facebook and when I said I closed it long ago they were all like "eeewww privacy freak".

So I explained my reasons, the abuse of personal data, the manipulation of the masses (Cambridge Analytica) and the others immediately sprang to life saying how horrible it all is. And turned out to have good knowledge of the facts. But yeah, it's so easy to stay in touch with friends.. Well yes I know, as an expat it's not easy without it.

Still, their initial "ewww" reaction really surprises me considering their apprehension at Facebook's practices.

<comment><USER5> Facebook, like many other things in our society, is a Clan-thing. "My clan vs your clan" is a game that humans play very very well. Their initial reaction is just "oh, you are not one of us". If you talk about the details, they might agree with you, but they still fall for the "not one of my clan"-thing initially. Same happens with many things. Linux vs Windows vs Mac OS Android vs iOS Left vs Right Vegetarian vs meat-eater vaxxination vs anti-vaxx choose your poison.

<comment><USER15> HN contains many obvious example of clan behavior. New Urbanism, bicycling, cooking for yourself instead of eating restaurant food every meal, Trump derangement syndrome, Brexit is going to cause the collapse of civilization, all strictly enforced groupthink on HN.

It never fails to amaze me how we (as a group) can have a free and open discussion of microcontroller RTOS options, but god help someone who has the wrong opinion about bicycling the groupthink will incinerate them.

Free to have any opinion here about tech things, but the counter reaction to that is no freedom at all about non-tech related opinions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Facebook is moderately useful for keeping in touch with people you want to hear from and who just won't use email/Mastadon or whatever, and for interest- based groups and events. That is all. And as long as you strictly restrict yourself to using _only_ the website through a browser and eschew their apps and carefully go over the privacy settings and tune them to your needs you should be okay. As for endlessly scrolling the newsfeed all day, well that is not so much Facebook's fault as that people who do that are probably having too much idle time and not knowing how to do some productive or more creative activity. If Facebook did not exist those people would trawl through Twitter or Youtube or something else.

<comment><USER17> > As for endlessly scrolling the newsfeed all day, well that is not so much > Facebook's fault as that people who do that are probably having too much > idle time and not knowing how to do some productive or more creative > activity. If Facebook did not exist those people would trawl through Twitter > or Youtube or something else.

ehh... yes and no.

On the one hand, there is something to the idea that folks should take responsibility for figuring out how to not waste their time like this (if they consider it a problem; if you _want_ to spend all day on goofing around on the internet, have fun I guess). There's some internal motivation required to make that happen that's a skill worth learning.

...but on the other hand, companies spend a ton of money researching how to keep people "engaged." This includes hiring psychologists to help them fine- tune the crap out of their platforms to make them addictive. Given _that_ level of manipulative behavior, I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the users. And yes, without Facebook they might just do the same on Twitter or YouTube, but those platforms are doing the same thing. It doesn't make it ok just because everyone else is doing it.

<comment><USER18> This is what pisses me off about using Facebook.

I just want status updates and photos from my friends. If I could literally mute all shared content (memes, twitter dunk screenshots and "shares") it would be a much nicer platform to use, but from Facebook's perspective this would be awful because I would be on and off the site in a few minutes.

It turns out I really just wanted MySpace with photo albums.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My attempts to not use Facebook and social media typically ended with substantial social isolation. The range of media I consumed became significantly smaller, because apparently got variety from other peoples suggestions. Maybe these articles are about people who have great IRL communities they fit perfectly in, but some of us are mostly lonely unless we keep at least those weak ties via network.

So ironically, I am not in period of starting to use Facebook again, so that I have more contact with people again.

<comment><USER20> Why not go do social hobbies? Photography or creative clubs, walking groups, dance classes, book reading clubs, volunteer work. There is lots to choose from.

<comment><USER19> I have job and kids. And I am already using my allocated "for me" time for sport. It gives some social contact, but not enough. Social hobbies require significant time spent hanging out, but are not child friendly so they are out.

Besides that, walking groups or book reading clubs don't exist here. Photography or creative clubs exist only in form of structured classes, where you pay for two lessons a week. Adults/older people, they mostly come and hurry back home - which is what I would do too I guess anyway. They are not really social places where you come for idle chat and build relationships that survive end of semester.

So it does not even matter that none of these activities appeals to me in any way - I could not belong to creative group, because I completely sux at art and find it frustrating.

<comment><USER20> That makes sense, tbf you do have a family, for a moment there I thought you were alone, alone.

Another suggestion (last one ;) if you have a family is board games. You have adult / kid games,lots of banter to be had and can be played with other families for a good time.

Also everyone sux at art in the beginning :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can't overstate how transformative a 2 year Facebook hiatus has been.

Maybe I was an extreme case, but it had a horrible effect on me and I would never consider using it regularly again.

<comment><USER22> Instagram has so many low-quality ads that show up so frequently when scrolling through the feed/stories that it's like they don't even WANT me to get addicted

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Personally, giving up facebook saves about 10-15 minutes a day. I feel better, not because my friends' stories were making me feel inadequate, but because it is one less stream of mostly useless information that I need to filter and process. I miss seeing pictures of my friends. I do not miss people regurgitating political memes. I don't think quitting FB dramatically improved my life satisfaction or happiness.

</comment><comment><USER24> Too much of anything can be harmful to your mind, including hacker news...

</comment><comment><USER25> It's interesting that a bunch of economists found no evidence of any economic losses from quitting FB. Nobody reported loss of any economic opportunity, access to purchase something they wanted, or anything like that, due to foregoing use of that platform.

Did the researchers fail to look for those things? Or did they just not come up?

</comment><comment><USER15> Facebook is a good example of the damage that can be done by the self imposed jail of binary thinking.

The proposed binary thinking option is users will be detrimentally manipulated and exploited as an advertising product where the manipulation is sometimes intense enough to exacerbate mental illnesses, whereas the binary alternative of deleting everything and going Unibomber will result in extreme social and job related ostracism because obviously "he's trying to hide something".

There are analog middle options that are just as valid as the polarizing binary extremes. I have a perfectly good FB account with plenty of connections, but I only log in every couple months. A little awkward when someone wishes me happy birthday and I don't see it until four months later, but whatever. Most of the time stuff that was posted six months ago is irrelevant today, and likewise I feel pretty safe ignoring most of what was posted today. I find that on FB, as with any other online media, that there's at least 10 to 100 times as much lurking as posting, so there's really not that much to read anyway. For example my best old work friend is about as much of a lurker as I am, so there's really nothing to see.

Or to summarize, the negative effects of deleting your account have nothing to do with the result of "stop using facebook", if you simply stop using it and do not delete your account.

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if selecting your population via people who respond to a Facebook ad about studying quitting social media introduces any bias. (I can't see the article so I don't know what their ad actually was) I worry that the correct takeaway is people who are interested in the idea of taking a break from social media probably should. Maybe the study was sufficiently well compensated that people who feel positively about social media still felt participation was worthwhile?

<comment><USER27> It is amazing to me that yours appears to be the only question that asks this.

But yes, there are problems with this study imo...none of which are really addressed in the paper. Giving someone $100 to quit is kind of an "economist" thing to do but is that really enough of an incentive to do something you wouldn't otherwise do? No.

They do say that their ad didn't mention quitting Facebook. And they did some kind of survey first (which is how they got the $100 figure if I understood that correctly) but it still doesn't look great to me. In particular, they claim that they did an RCT because they randomly assigned the people who clicked on their ad...that isn't random.

I also think compliance is far harder to observe than the author's believe. The subjects deactivate, and if they log back in it reactivates but is that foolproof? Not really. Tbf though, the number of subjects who fail to complete is low given upside of $100...so maybe.

The key parts of the survey really rely on self-reporting (will people have a bias to report improved wellbeing given all the bad publicity about FB? probably).

But yeah, this isn't really an RCT. It would be nice to see one but I think the issue is that most people who use Facebook a lot probably aren't interested in stopping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I used to use Instagram quite a bit. Got really frustrated with the vapidness and pointlessness of it. When I gave it up, I just felt like this weight had been lifted. No need to look at how cool others' lives seem to be, just time to live my own and enjoy it for my own sake rather than sharing.

These days I prefer to use social media as a form of dialogue, almost like forums, than anything else. The focus is on ideas and conversation.... which is why I actually really enjoy HN.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sometimes I feel like I have a "genetic advantage" to not be attracted by social media. I have a Twitter account that I rarely use (mostly for API- access for NLP research), I check into my Facebook account maybe once a month and have never used Instagram. I watch some things on Youtube (usually recorded lectures or tech talks or board game videos) but rarely ever "drift" towards recommended videos and the like. I used to be on IRC a lot back in the day but quit it completely, I used to frequent specialized forums, especially when I was an online poker player but also have quit those completely. Don't have a Reddit account and am not really following that. I guess my HN account is the most used social media right now. I also don't feel the urge to post and share pictures which I notice a lot in my friends. Sometimes it feels like a moment doesn't exist for them unless they can capture it in a picture (whereas for me it actually disturbs the enjoyment of the moment to stop and take a picture).

I instant message but am notorious for "answering late" and keep getting complaints that I don't check everything immediately. I usually put my phone on the charger when I get back to work and only look at it every now and then, sometimes not at all until I go to bed.

Interestingly, I am very interested in how social media works technologically and have also been an early adopter of many technologies. However I feel like I'm fairly "results oriented" when it comes to social media so I expect some sort of benefit from using them vs. the time spent.

I've also noticed that I'd probably test well on my ability to delay gratification and I feel like this might be correlated with social media consumption in some way (maybe there's studies on this?).

<comment><USER30> Do you find that you tend to get sucked into to ANYTHING in your life? Content, substances, activities? I find that I have a very addictive personality across the board - once something feels good it's very hard to stop even when I consciously want to or it's making me feel bad. This happens to me with social media, TV, alcohol, drugs, and occasionally even reading or a new hobby I'm really into. Rather than the ability to delay gratification, I'd imagine social media consumption is correlated to whatever it is about the brain's dopamine pathways that leads some people to get addicted to things more easily than others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> this is true of any poor online habit people develop though, i don't think it has too much in particular to do with Facebook.

If you asked Reddit or Hacker News readers to do the same, I almost guarantee similar or the same results.

<comment><USER32> This is true for most of the finding. But not for politics, in my opinion. I think people are more likely to get polalized in Facebook than in ycombinator. In fact it is known that political campaigns invest heavily in facebook adds. And this is worse than most of the regular media, which although biased, at least provides some sort of fact checking or push back usually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> When you stop using Facebook, it makes the quality of your life better.

</comment><comment><USER34> The way I choose to use FB or Twitter is to check one's profile before the actual meeting happens so I could have some 'common knowledge' with him to talk about. As a researcher and programmer, it's crucial to realize that you couldn't do anything meaningful or fundamental without immersing yourself into thinking and being kinda isolated. I'm kinda pessimistic about this round of internet bubble as it seems to come out of the exploitation of people's spare time and attention by using superficial content and instant satisfaction. (FB, Netflix, Tik-Tok, etc) But productivity is indeed boosted. I couldn't imagine WFH being so widespread 20 years ago, but now with a smartphone, you can basically meet, chat, work on documents/ projects, taking lectures from elementary to graduate level. So in the long-term, I'm still optimistic that, maybe after the burst of the current bubble, people will realize how addicted they've been, and how they should adapt to new techs.

</comment><comment><USER35> I still use Reddit, Youtube and Twitter on a daily basis. I get to choose what to follow, how and for that, it's informative (and a time-passing activity for sure) and useful.

Facebook, on the other hand, is an all or nothing app in my opinion. It's difficult to distinguish between who to friend and who not. Close friends and family members, I keep in touch with through WhatsApp, text and whatnot.

As an entertainment (or informative) platform, Facebook is even worse. Sensationalism and misinformation is rampant, or you're bombarded with ads. And you're not really allowed to interact or disagree without getting into a de-railed discussion.

On top of that, you're comparing your life with those of others (' highlights). It's a useless and depressing timesink (which Instagram is as well for those exact same reasons).

I'm glad I quit Facebook (for 99%).

</comment><comment><USER36> I stopped using Facebook a good few years ago (4+), and to be honest, I know it had a positive impact on me, but at the time I was a very frustrated with almost a feeling of being blocked off from some part of society/friends.

Now I have absolutely no reservations saying : 'No sorry I dont have FB' and it's such a relief.

I do still have other bad habits such as over consumption of youtube/news sites which I'm also working on, but I recommend the leap away from the plague of Faceobok.

When I have kids, I genuinely will be very diligent about deamonizing all social media and education around modest useage.

The social media enviornment has exploded so fast there has never been time to fully realise the impacts or the effects later. But all indications look towards it being incredibly damaging.

</comment><comment><USER37> TL;DR from the abstract of the actual study:

> In a randomized experiment, we find that deactivating Facebook for the four > weeks before the 2018 US midterm election (i) reduced online activity, while > increasing offline activities such as watching TV alone and socializing with > family and friends; (ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political > polarization; (iii) increased subjective well-being; and (iv) caused a large > persistent reduction in post-experiment Facebook use. Deactivation reduced > post-experiment valuations of Facebook, suggesting that traditional metrics > may overstate consumer surplus.

<comment><USER38> " (ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization; "

I interpret that as 'reduced propaganda and it's resultant effects". Much like giving up television.

<comment><USER32> Polarization has been the trend in the western world for the last decade, slowly but surely countries are being divided and polirized more and more. It doesn't paint a good picture of the future for sure, and social media is part of the problem unfortunately.

<comment><USER4> Personally I consider polarization the ultimate in intellectual laziness as a scapegoat. The problem is that people disagree! Not that they any stances are particularly evil or insane, factionalism, zero sum thinking, nor any actual solution in mind. Asking if they have any ideas for a solution just gets a dirty look as you commit the faux pau of actually attempting to get people to think. Instead it is just one word which tries to sound smart but is utterly vapid repeated as nausuem as the source of modern ills. Polarization!

Never mind that lack of it has historically lead to /way worse/ outcomes. Unity is not a good thing in itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've stopped using it in 2009 because of a fallout with my classmates.

Sometimes I wonder if I missed social occasions because of not using facebook. Generally I realized facebook didn't really allow to "make new friends" because it lacks "discovery" features.

Now there are social networks who are focused on neighborhood and honestly I wish facebook would do something about discovery. I haven't heard from the facebook dating app either.

Facebook, even if it's successful, feels like such a big waste of potential.

</comment><comment><USER40> I thought I was clever to disable YouTube viewing history, thus replacing all the interesting and addictive videos I normally get lost in with the most inane garbage from the typical "news" vendors, sports highlights, celebrity interviews, Star Wars/capeshit theorycrafting, crap from Business Insider and TED and the like, etc. which I of course planned to never watch...

Now when I want to avoid working I just end up watching stupid clickbait instead of interesting clickbait...

<comment><USER41> What I found really helpful in reducing Youtube viewing time, is to use a browser-extension that hides recommended video all together. This way, you only watch videos you explicitly searched for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19076863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19076863)

</comment><comment><USER43> I did this. The only thing it gave me was social isolation. People look at you funny when you tell them you don't have a facebook account.

If you have a well-developed circle of friends, sure. But this only holds for what, half of Americans? I don't know people well enough that I'd have a functioning social life without Facebook, unfortunately. I think this holds for many other people as well.

</comment><comment><USER44> In my case I'm spending less time of FB (almost only for work) and more on HN and other sites. Definitely more on WhatsApp groups with people I meet in real life. Basically I'm losing contacts with people living hundreds or thousands of km away that I don't see even any other year. No impact on news, there are plenty of sources outside FB. FB never was my primary source.

</comment><comment><USER45> I would love to see similar studies done on other social media platforms.

I quit Facebook a couple of years ago and went back to take a look recently. Whole bucket of "nope" right there. I am now concerned about other platforms I find quite sticky though, including Reddit, HN and particularly Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER46> For me:

Newspaper: late 70's-2002

Friendster: 2003-2005

TV: late 70's-2006

Myspace: 2004-2006

Orkut: 2005-2006

Facebook: 2003-2007

/.: 2004-2007

Flickr: 2004-2010

Radio: late 70's-2011

Twitter: 2008-2013

Quora: 2009-2013

Snap: 2012-2013

Meat agriculture & palm kernel oil (yeah, yeah no stupid comments): late 70's-2014

Reddit: 2017-2020

LinkedIn: 2004-2020

IRC: 1996-

Craigslist: 2000-

eBay: 2001-

Amazon: 2001-

AliExpress: 2016-

Wish: 2019-

Addicted to materialism, I guess.

<comment><USER47> You could add RSS 2006-2018

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Does anyone know of a similar study regarding Twitter usage and its peculiar dark patterns?

I'm curious if the findings are "social media in general" or "just Facebook"

</comment><comment><USER49> The benefits seem quite significant. I wonder if I could start using Facebook too so I can subsequently quit it and reap these benefits too.

</comment><comment><USER50> Biggest takeaway: a therapy is typically 2x$100 an hour sessions per week. Quitting Facebook provides 25-40% of the effect?

Facebook is free? Not even close.

</comment><comment><USER51> I wrote a Selenium bot to unsubscribe from notifications from all my friends. Now I just use Facebook for messaging and events.

</comment><comment><USER52> Use a time tracker browser plugin for a week. Look back at the results, decide if it's how you want to spend your time.

<comment><USER53> > time tracker browser plugin

Any recommendations?

<comment><USER52> I use [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webtime- tracker/pp...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/webtime- tracker/ppaojnbmmaigjmlpjaldnkgnklhicppk)

seems to be fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I've been off Facebook since 2009 or so. The only feature I miss is being notified about people's birthdays.

<comment><USER55> I made the conscious decision to just make a list of everyone's birthday I cared about before I deleted FB. I often hear people say, "I wish I could leave Facebook, but how would I know when anyone's birthday is?" which I don't see as an insurmountable task.

Since in your case you didn't save them before deleting it, I wonder if it would be an interesting opportunity to randomly message people you haven't spoken with in a while, to put some birthdays in the calendar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I haven't had a television for the past 15 years - have not missed it one second. And what is this facebook thing?

</comment><comment><USER57> Facebook is what a social network would be if it was a capitalist engine for data mining and advertisement injections.

Facebook is not a social network for connecting people with people they care about.

</comment><comment><USER58> Now study the effects of dropping instagram

</comment><comment><USER59> HN's Facebook obsession is so unproductive. Let it go already. Focus on building your own thing.

Yes, people use Facebook. No, you don't have to.

Edit: yes, please downvote this comment. Let the HN naval gazing continue.

<comment><USER60> People who use Facebook often ask _you_ to use Facebook, too…

<comment><USER6> Not only that, they put events for our kids activities on facebook.

I have to ask to be emailed about these events and often I get a screenshot of their facebook post!

You should not have to be on a platform to participate and luckily everyone that I explained this problem to understands it and do send me the email with events. But it creates enormous pressure to be on the platform.</comment></comment></comment>


Genealogy records reveal how a harmful mutation can hide from natural selection - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/how-a-fille-du-roy-brought-the-mothers-curse-to-canada/540153?single_page=true <comment><USER2> 290 years is really the blink of an eye in terms of human evolution, and so the title line is a little misleading. Wait another three thousand years and it's likely we will be able to measure an evolutionary effect. The article notes that some women get this disorder as a result of carrying the allele that it is associated with, but at a rate that's around 1:10 relative to males, so maybe it's just a matter of more time. Also, selection in humans can occur on the whole family not just on individuals, so families with sick males might have a disadvantage, but the effect is apparently too small to measure in this data.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there anyone who wants to write a GAN book with me? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Perhaps you should add some information about who you are and why you see a need for a GAN book.

<comment><USER3> I'm not the OP but I think its time someone takes the lead in writing a GAN book. GAN is to ANN, which is the most popular algo in field of "AI", if I may take the liberty to say so. GAN is to AI what hacking is to computing. Initially I thought Springer may release a special version directed on GAN's, but I don't think that will happen unless someone takes the lead.</comment></comment>


House lawmakers ask Facebook to put Libra cryptocurrency project on hold - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20680230/facebook-libra-calibra-crypto-maxine-waters-congress-regulation-investigation-halt <comment><USER2> > _This is why we believe in and are committed to a collaborative process with > regulators, central banks, and lawmakers to ensure that Libra helps with the > kinds of issues that the existing financial system has been fighting, > notably around money laundering, terrorism financing, and more._

This was inevitable, but it's surprising to see them acknowledge it.

> _combined with the ability for law enforcement and regulators to conduct > their own analysis of on-chain activity [...] Libra should improve detection > and enforcement, not set these back._

I expressed concern that this would happen a while ago [1]. This basically bypasses all privacy safeguards that clients would enjoy at a regular bank.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263861)

<comment><USER3> This might depend on what you consider a "regular bank" but every bank and exchange I've ever come into contact with requires documentation and vetting to ensure that I am who I say I am and that I'm not not laundering money, and if the police come with a warrant they get everything they ask for.

I think you might be thinking of specific banks and shell company schemes in Panama and not what most people would describe as a regular bank.

<comment><USER4> Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Know Your Customer (KYC). I'm going out on a limb to say that most tech companies have no idea what BSA or KYC means and the paperwork involved.

<comment><USER5> As someone who works for Google (opinions are my own) on the payments team, I disagree. :)

Due to P2P, and disbursements we do for Play developers and AdSense, we are heavily invested in KYC. And we have to comply with the regulations of all countries we do business in, not just the US.

<comment><USER4> Just curious, do you have to deal with OFAC controls?

<comment><USER6> U.S. persons must comply with OFAC regulations, including all U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches.

Source: [https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/faqs/Sanctions/Page...](https://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/faq_general.aspx#basic)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This gets it all wrong, IMHO.

An "official ask" rather than actual laws or regulations comes across as silly, self-serving and grandstanding -- although it _is_ in Facebook's self- interest to work with Congress.

The problem here is the potential for uncompetitive dominance -- just like Google or Apple can unfairly favor their own products in Search or apps, what does it mean for Facebook to favor or only allow its own currency option in transactions/marketplace/etc.?

Far better would be Congress ensuring freedom of choice -- let Facebook develop its own currency, but make sure that anywhere it's provided as an option on Facebook/Instagram/etc. there's also an equivalently frictionless way to use Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, MasterCard, etc.

Force payment methods and currencies to compete on a level playing field, instead of by which mega-company forces them as exclusive options.

<comment><USER8> > An "official ask" rather than actual laws or regulations comes across as > silly, self-serving and grandstanding

Libra was announced extremely recently. Do you really expect lawmakers to push laws or regulations through the system that fast? Surely not.

If anything, an "official ask" like this is one of Congress' many tools.

<comment><USER9> >Do you really expect lawmakers to push laws or regulations through the system that fast? Surely not.

The GP's expectation aside, I don't want the government to be able to make laws that quickly. Knee jerk laws rarely work well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >"Because Facebook is already in the hands of over a quarter of the world's population, it is imperative that Facebook and its partners immediately cease implementation plans until regulators and Congress have an opportunity to examine these risks and take action," the letter says.

We're scared that you have the ability to disintermediate our control of the financial system just like you did to publishers.

<comment><USER11> Forced to choose between Facebook and a government controlling anything, I'd rather have the government at the wheel. For me this is a "devil I know" type of thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> With government, you also get periodic opportunities to vote on whether or not it should change course. It's hard to change a government's direction with the ballot box, of course, but it's not impossible.

Contrast this to Facebook, which is structured specifically to prevent even large shareholders from having a say in its operations. Facebook is the Empire of Zuck, and the only factor that matters in its decisionmaking are the whims of its boy king.

<comment><USER12> I don't think the interest of other large shareholders would be more aligned with the interest of the general population though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Official Facebook summary of the past two weeks, responding to many criticisms: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-marcus/libra-2-weeks- in...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-marcus/libra-2-weeks- in/10158616513819148/)

<comment><USER14> Most amusing to me is the question "Can Facebook be trusted to manage financial services?" to which Facebook's own answer is not an emphatic "yes", but an explanation that they will not control it.

<comment><USER15> I don't see how the only reasonable response to such a stupid question amuses you. If they had responded with an emphatic yes they would have been crucified in the media immediately.

<comment><USER16> Not GP, but I find it amusing that anyone is even paying attention to facebook's response to the question. Of course they're going to give a muted, unemphatic yes (as you said), and the public seem to believe them and end all questioning there. Luckily the US government is not giving up so easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Link to the Full text and release here: [https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx...](https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404009)

PDF: [https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/07.02.2019...](https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/07.02.2019_-_fb_ltr.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER18> "These vulnerabilities could be exploited and obscured by bad actors, as other cryptocurrencies, exchanges, and wallets have been in the past."

Says one bad actor to the other bad actor.

<comment><USER19> I really want to see what happens if Facebook says no.

<comment><USER20> It would not go well for Facebook. Their lawyers won't let them say no.

<comment><USER21> Zucks the boss tho. I'd like to see it too. And I don't even use Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> People here are talking like the government is trying to do something bad. If this were goldman sachs instead of facebook, we'd be cheering. The financial system is complex and having the wrong incentive systems (regulations) in place can lead to trememdous harm throughout the world. If you were working when the 2008 recession hit, you're familiar with the kinds of issues that financial regulation works to deter.

<comment><USER23> > People are talking like the government is trying to do something bad.

Based on 1 article you read

<comment><USER22> You missed an important word in your quotation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Could the government effectively regulate/curtail libra by essentially telling Facebook's financial partners like Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Stripe, etc that they risk losing their licenses by promoting/handling Libra?

<comment><USER25> In theory maybe, but I don't think you'd find a politician willing to risk their reputation to pull the plug on Visa. Not only would it be a major blow to the economy but it would be a giant pain in the ass for their constituents. When's the last time you went into a bank to take out cash? When's the last time you had cash in your wallet at all?

Visa wouldn't be the biggest loser in that scenario, the politicians/regulators would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Think of how much personal data Facebook could gather on you if it knows 'EVERYTHING' you purchase or at least a huge part of what you purchase.

They've already been busted selling personal data under the radar to third parties.

It's less 'omg control of the financial system' and more 'you're not exactly the exemplar of trust with peoples personal data'

I'm all for crypto making the lame financial system we currently have obsolete but I don't know if Facebook are the most trustworthy people to do it.

<comment><USER27> Please read the Libra whitepapers and organizational notes. You don't need a Facebook account to use it and they wouldn't have control of the personal data on your spending...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Imo, Facebook released its plans in the last minute, so that it can have time to launch before regulator catches up. The later they catch up, the more likely Facebook is going to dominate the market and become harder to roll back the currency.

Facebook is probably aware of government regulators looking to control it more and certainly anxious about voices looking to break it. The Libra coin being established as a pseudonymous crypto-currency in Switzerland will give it some time to figure stuff out.

<comment><USER29> How is a year ahead of launch "last minute"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is not surprising. The minute Libra starts operating it becomes the main money laundering tool in the world. Depending on how it's implemented it could easily topple the economies of smaller countries, and significantly increase funding for terrorist organizations and garden variety criminals.

I don't see how any government, and especially the US government, agrees to any of that anytime soon.

<comment><USER31> lol.. I don't think people realize how the legacy banking systems already facilitate this activity

HSBC was recently fined for laundering billions for the cartels. This activity happens on an industrial scale and a Facebook cryptocurrency isn't needed for these groups to move money.

<comment><USER30> I'm not sure how I should reply to this. You really believe I don't know how money laundering is currently performed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The Financial Times speculated that Libra transactions - because they involve some currency risk - will incur capital gains taxes (CGT). Although the CGT absolute amounts are likely to be very small, and in some countries will be covered by a personal allowance, this will still cause tremendously fiddly problems when filing taxes. I'm afraid the link to the FT article is behind a paywall, but this blog post summarises it: [https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/07/01/facebooks- lib...](https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/07/01/facebooks-libra-and- tax/)

<comment><USER29> It's not even the amounts that would be the killer if it's capital gains taxed really, it's the overhead come tax filing time for the average American.

<comment><USER33> Except Facebook can just write an algorithm to calculate it all for you, and then say "write 16.47 in box 18".

Facebook could even promise to cover all the taxes owed, which would give them an incentive to keep the currency value stable.

<comment><USER34> > Facebook could even promise to cover all the taxes owed, which would give > them an incentive to keep the currency value stable.

Stable compared to what?

If the Euro falls relative to the Libra (same as Libra gaining against the Euro) then Europeans owe capital gains tax. Same goes for USD/Americans, CNY/Chinese people, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The fact that this is centralized, based on fiat, easily connected to social media accounts, actually makes it the best way for governments to combat real cryptocurrency.

But I hope they don't figure that out, and give Ethereum and Bitcoin time to finish their scaling efforts.

</comment><comment><USER36> The government hates it when you try to make a new ponzi to replace the one they have got going.

<comment><USER37> Alongside their Ponzi. It wouldn't really replace anything, any more that BTC has replaced Dollars. The only thing anyone cares about with respect to BTC is how many dollars they are worth.

<comment><USER38> That's been key all along - as long as cryptocurrency remains anchored in real currency value for the majority of exchanges, then it will fail to stand on its own, as the cost of transfer to and from BTC will be too steep to warrant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Good.

</comment><comment><USER40> Dan Larimer's EOS functions very similar to Libra, with Delegated Proof of Stake. EOS' DPOS encountered much of the same criticisms around centralization when it was launched, but many people swear by it just because it is good enough. Delegates ("block producers") do reverse transactions on EOS and they consider it a feature. EOS is not immutable, but it does have faster transaction capacity than incumbent chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin.

If Dan Larimer had launched Libra instead of Zuckerberg even with the same corporate block producers, a lot of the crypto community would be loving it. Governments would have ignored it.

This is all about the messenger itself. Zuckerberg deciding to crucify himself and be the focus of society's disdain.

Nice to see the state's monopoly on money evaporating overnight. Its not about whether this iteration would be better for society, its more about the competition existing.</comment>


Dan Abramov exploring options outside Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1268571783575351298 <comment><USER2> I am curious if it would be possible to get the React core team to focus their efforts on react implementation that is not under FB influence like Preact ([https://github.com/preactjs/preact](https://github.com/preactjs/preact))

</comment><comment><USER3> Everyone has their own most important tech of the past decade. For me it's definitely React.</comment>


Internet Companies: Confusing Consumers for Profit - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing-consumers-profit <comment><USER2> A few days ago, I posted "Unicorns aren't ad-supported" on HN.[1] There, I pointed out that, of a list of the top 50 "unicorns", non-public startups with > $1bn valuations, only three (Snapchat, Pintrest, and Vice) are ad-supported. This dot-com boom isn't driven by ads. It's driven by companies that provide a product or service for which their customers pay them. The companies that make their money from ads are from the _previous_ dot-com boom.

Ad-blocking and tracker-blocking thus won't hurt the growth companies in Silicon Valley. YC could get behind ad-blocking without reducing the value of their portfolio. The concept that "the user is the product, not the customer" is now outdated. There are still companies which rely on it. They are vulnerable. Google still hasn't come up with a major revenue-generating product other than ads.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10372789)

<comment><USER3> I agree that selling an actual product or service[1] the proper way to build a respectable and sustainable business.

As for making the user the product[2], advertising is merely the most obvious and publicly visible way stolen user data can be exploited for profit. For example, I doubt Experian is using the search information they get from webmd[3] for targeted advertising.

[1] an actual service; abusing copyright to bypass first sale and other forms of rent-seeking doesn't count

[2] obBalkan: [https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...](https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html#balkan)

[3] [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/looking-up-symptoms- online-...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/looking-up-symptoms-online-these- companies-are-collecting-your-data)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So,,, at what point does this become accepted (as opposed to tolerated) business practice? Or, more optimistic, no longer tolerated. At one point it was ok to say, "This is all new and still being worked out." But, it is no longer new. It is very worked out. Entire sectors of the economy (and legal system) are devoted to knowing more about consumers then they sometimes know about themselves. The entire industry is being built on bait-and-switch and obfuscation practices. And, the tech industry, the supposed knight in shining armor come to save humanity from itself, is leading the way. Someone, at some point, needs to call a spade a spade. We need to own this, if this is our new society. Or stop closing our eyes, if it isn't.

<comment><USER5> _" If a business model wouldn't work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail."_ (last line of the article)

Since the invisible hand of the free internet appears to be arthritic, a more visible hand (fist?) is necessary. And we have it in the way of request blockers such as uBlock Origin, wich can compleltely block Facebook's and Google's tracking in their tracks. As more and more people turn to subversive solutions such as privacy oriented request blockers and ad blockers, we may finally turn things around.

My hope is on an open source browser that is entirely privacy oriented, easy to use and adopt by non-technical users.

<comment><USER6> The last line from the article you quote is spot on.

Why are alleged "services" provided for "free"?

One group will tell you it's because advertisers are picking up the costs for "content". Another group will tell you that it's because no user (cf. advertiser) would pay if a "fee" were charged to use the www.

Of course, no "free" business model will dare test the theory of the later group, so I guess we'll never know how the user values these "services". Instead the investors and advertisers set the value. Grossly inflated.

In the early days of the internet as I remember it the real (non-hardware) costs for the internet were tolls on telephone calls (dial-up). Organizations picked up the tab for employees who used the internetwork. Tuition-paying students also got access.

Then came UUnet and "ISP's". And then people had their own personal computer, at home, with a network card.

As far as I'm concerned, the internet connection fee is still the only real cost.

I think the browser you allude to is possible. But I think some changes in thinking in how information is structured and presented on the www is needed. If we let the www be shaped solely by web developers with a lust for layers of abstraction and increased complexity and being given carte blanche to run code on others' computers, then it forces the "browser" to be something that is far too complex and too much trouble for any open source volunteer programmer to deal with.

Make the www easier to parse and then the www "browser" becomes easier to replicate. This is only my opinion. Others would certainly disagree.

<comment><USER5> I believe we need a multi-pronged approach to _retaking the internet_ from the forces that dominate it now. One prong is a resistance movement, such as I suggest above. Another is to innovate on better ways to finance content and services on the web, be it micropayments or something else. And another is to find a way to counter or eliminate the perverse incentives that drive clickbait, garbage content and viral shallowness. It is not accidental that I allude to Adam Smith's invisible hand above. He and others knew the key was to understanding the feedback loops. The internet's feedback loop is broken. Clicks and quantity drive revenue, not quality.

And yes, my username is a reference to Star Trek, a show which is probably too socialist for the heavily anarcho-capitalist-leaning libertarian crowd here on HN (See the link in my reply to username223).

I'm working on setting up a website where we can raise awareness, change hearts and minds, and support efforts that help us retake the internet. I cannot do it alone, even with my evil goatee. Email me if you'd like to help.

<comment><USER7> _" my username is a reference to Star Trek"_

Goatie, S2 OTS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I do have a Facebook account, primarily because I am studying abroad and I need to keep in touch with my family and close friends and Facebook is, thus far, the best way to share what is going on in my life. It kind of allow me to "broadcast" my life events.

Now, I really dislike what I just read.

I wonder if tech companies have a moral obligation to disclose to the user what are the terms of the contracts.

While ToS and Privacy Policy are public documents, I don't think they are close to anything readable for the layman. They are mostly pile of legal garbage and it is virtually impossible to go through them everytime you sign- up for a service.

That is why I would like to put the emphasis on clarity here. What if?

What if technology companies were forced to disclose _clearly_ what signing-up for their product entails with respect to user privacy. I am thinking of something alongside this:

""" Hello r0naa,

Welcome on Facebook, we hope that you will have a great experience here.

Facebook will allow you to: \- easily communicate with your friends

\- share photos, videos and play games with your friends

\- keep in touch with distant relatives

On the other hand, we will:

\- keep a record of the messages you send to your friends

\- keep a permanent record of the photos you have shared on Facebook

\- keep a log of all the websites you have visited that contain a "like" button.

Moreover, you should be aware that we will disclose all your personal data to the US government if we are issued a NS letter.

Hope you have a great day,

"""

To be clear, I am not saying that this is the right solution. Only, I believe it is pretty obvious that there is a problem and that a lot of people who are not technically literate are not able to make a informed choice about whether or not they want to give up their privacy, even partially.

I hope it will spawn an interesting discussion, feel free to share your ideas and suggestions.

<comment><USER9> It's not just that privacy policies / ToS are using complex legal language. The real problem is that they are so broad.

For example, just about every privacy policy states that information collected can be used to improve the company's products & services, or to help develop new ones. That effectively gives the company free reign to do _whatever they like_ with your data. Who knows that products they may decide to offer?

A company could release a new product tomorrow that sells your individual browsing data to the highest bidder, and that would be covered by this clause. Also remember that almost all policies state that they can be updated without notice too. Do No Evil today, Evil tomorrow...

<comment><USER10> > The real problem is that they are so broad.

Before I click the "go away" button, I interpret the wall of text as "we'll do whatever we want, and if you disagree, you can try to sue us, but the PR campaign will be what matters, not the legal stuff."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Glad to see Chromebooks mentioned. I for one consider Chrome to be Google's last attempt to extract those last pieces of information from the desktop which it can't get from having tracking on 99% of the pages found on the internet.

That and subvert internet standards by giving Google the ability to push their own HTML on server and client in real-time, forcing other browser to follow their lead or be declared "legacy" or "outdated" in front of users on Google- websites.

I consider Chrome to probably be the worst thing which has happened to the modern web. It's much worse than IE ever was.

On a real laptop you have the freedom to chose a privacy-respecting browser, but Chromebooks are even worse in the sense that there's only one browser, you can't chose any other, and the browser there is spying on you real-time.

That these devices are not _illegal_ to use in a education-context is really astounding to me.

</comment><comment><USER12> Edit: My initial comment was incorrect, corrected version below.

Chrome Sync encrypts sync data on the client. By default the encryption passphrase is your Google Account password. This allows Google to read the data, as described here: [https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en)

However, you can set a separate Chrome Sync encryption passphrase in settings. This second passphrase is never sent to Google at all and allows you to use Chrome Sync without Google reading the data. It should be obvious why this is not the default, as requiring a second passphrase is a very significant decrease in usability, but it's there if you want it.

<comment><USER13> Then how is this scenario possible:

Set up Google account with password "abc" on PC1, use chrome, set bookmark.

Go to PC2, select "reset password" and reset Google account password to "123". Login to chrome with "123". The bookmark from before appears.

<comment><USER12> My initial comment was incorrect and has been updated. However, have you actually tried the scenario you describe? In the past, when I have changed my Google account password and logged into a new computer, I have had to enter my previous account password on the new computer to decrypt the data before Sync would work. Indeed, if you look in Chrome Sync's settings, you will see text that looks like this: "All data was encrypted with your Google password as of Jan 17, 2015", letting you know which version of your password to use.

<comment><USER13> I've last used Chrome around 2012, and at that time it would work after resetting the account password. In fact, I still don't know which account password I had used.

So at least at some point in time Google did store all this data.

It seems to have been quite leaky in the past, and that doesn't make Google any more trustworthy.

Solution: Use Firefox. Also, Firefox at least allows Cookies on localhost or other local domains.

Anyway, Google may not store any bit of my browser history in the US anyway, so I should probably go to court against them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I run benchmark regularly concerning privacy exposure, and I ran one this summer to find out all 3rd parties for a sample of high traffic web sites.

I collected and sorted the results by [3rd party, 1st party] pairs: this allows to see at a glance the most ubiquitous 3rd parties out there, i.e. those which have the ability to build a profile of your browsing habits.[1]

Facebook (through `facebook.net`) was definitely at the top in the benchmark, when using EasyList, EasyPrivacy, Peter Lowe's.[2]

I personally doubt a majority of users care that there is a Facebook _like_ widget on any page, except maybe for a handful of sites for those with a Facebook account. So disabling Facebook globally with exceptions where needed is a top advice to reduce privacy exposure.[3]

[1] [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode#easy- mo...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode#easy-mode)

[2] Followed by `googletagservices.com`, `twitter.com`.

[3] [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic- filtering:-to...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic- filtering:-to-easily-reduce-privacy-exposure)

</comment><comment><USER15> Sounds like a situation that could be polluted with something like what Moxie Marlinspike did with googlesharing, in an effort to bury the signal in the noise.

</comment><comment><USER10> Stalkers gonna stalk, makers gonna make, founders gonna found. We nerds always knew that the Facebook, Google, etc. images were tracking beacons, and their business model was, to paraphrase Eric Schmidt, to get as close as possible to the creepy line. Fortunately, it is/was easy to opt out by DNS-blocking a few hosts. If this behavior becomes common, back-end data sharing and syncing will become the norm, and something like ToR will become necessary, then local encryption, then...

But who ever said fighting crime was easy?

EDIT: "And I have no doubt that the vast majority of engineers, designers, and policy makers working in Silicon Valley want to do the right thing."

How can I even pretend to believe that the author believes that? They mostly don't know what the "right thing" is, don't think of their behavior in moral terms, and wouldn't dent their salaries to act morally.

<comment><USER6> "...as close as possible to the creepy line."

Great stuff.

Blog posts are just too boring most of the time. We need more direct quotes from the people toeing the creepy line.

That is the behavior that should be tracked. What do you think these "engineers, designers and policy makers" get up to each day? Maybe lots of "pretending to believe" they are doing something meaningful?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not aware of the technical details of how the user is tracked. Is it possible to be tracked even if the user has logged out of the social network website (based on the browser or machine being used)?

<comment><USER17> The technical details are simple.

When you are "logged in" to Facebook, your browser stores a unique token in a cookie that can identify you. That unique token is sent with _every request_ the browser sends to FB, even requests you don't initiate directly.

These hidden requests happen all the time, like when a web developer embeds a FB like button on a page. The like button is actually generated and served by FB's servers (check your browser's dev console), and the request to show the button itself gets that cookie sent along with it regardless of whether you press it.

The tricky bit is that "logging out" might not actually be enough. I don't use FB so can't say for sure, but it is certainly possible to implement "log out" such that you can't see restricted resources or pages, but still have an identifying cookie on your machine. In this case the cookie itself would store a flag marking you as "logged in" or "logged out", but the cookie would still identify you all the same.

<comment><USER18> I like to always use incognito browsing sessions when logging into Facebook. At some point I cleared all my cookies too.

I remember a while back an article was posted about how to uniquely identify users without cookies though. I don't recall the exact method though, or if in this scenario it would require javascript and not just a link to a like button.

<comment><USER19> Basically you're using the specs the browser sends about the computer - OS, screen size, add-ons installed.. this gets pretty unique. I've been able to identify friends on a local site just by knowing them and their computers.

Check yourself here:

[https://panopticlick.eff.org/](https://panopticlick.eff.org/)

<comment><USER18> Was able to find it. Actually it's using etags. They work even if you disable cookies. Perfect identification, similar to cookies. Sites were using it before it came to light:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETags](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETags)

<comment><USER3> You don't even need ETags - if the server sends out a unique (or mostly unique) "Last-Modified" header, the browser will return the cookie in "If- Modified-Since".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is this a problem? Who stays logged into Facebook?

My browser does an auto fill for my user name and password, I login for 10 minutes to see postings from my brother, grandson, neices, etc. and then logoff.

Never occurred to me to stay logged into FB. In the same way, I like to use a separate web browser for just using Google and twitter. Small easy steps for maintaining a modicum of privacy.

<comment><USER21> _Who stays logged into Facebook?_

That isn't relevant. There are login cookies and there are tracking cookies. Unless one arranges for the tracking cookies to be deleted regularly, one will be tracked even if not logged in.

<comment><USER20> Thanks, good point: I should use incognito mode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Anyone else find it ironic that the site has a twitter, facebook, g+, diaspora share bar hovering on the right hand side?

<comment><USER23> Not really, because those are good old links that don't contact a 3rd party server before being clicked. The standard Like buttons connect on page load, instead of on click.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> >> Starting this month, Facebook will use them to track your visit to every Web page that displays the buttons—even if you don't click on anything.

This is why I have had everything from facebook.com or fbcdn blocked on any sire other than facebook.com for some time.

</comment><comment><USER25> Another point to think about is that if facebook (or any of these other sites tracking you through social media buttons) receives a subpoena, it likely has nearly your entire browsing history on file since so many sites have those button.

</comment><comment><USER26> One thing to do is stop cloud seeding.

Another is to block trackers.

Another is to demand sensible advertising.

Your personal information is a currency. You get to spend it how you wish. But just like any other currency, you must protect it yourself.

</comment><comment><USER26> Need to think of a particularly evil way to game this and embarrass FB.

</comment><comment><USER27> This title has at least two valid semantic interpretations. I'm mildly disappointed.

<bad assumption redacted>

I'd argue that Facebook's moves create wealth, and are better for people in the long run. The opt-out policy allows this type of system to exist.

</comment><comment><USER28> Just display a warning notice on every page, where the user has to click "Yes, I agree with the tracking cookie". That will solve the problem.</comment>


Hello World, WebGL - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/social-tables-tech/hello-world-webgl-79f430446b5c

<comment><USER2> Thanks for this! Do you have any recommendations for further reading?

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, there is a great lesson about all webgl for beginner [http://learningwebgl.com/blog/?page_id=1217](http://learningwebgl.com/blog/?page_id=1217) Hope you like this.

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> very good blog post</comment>


Kent man arrested after picture of burning poppy posted on internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-burning-poppy <comment><AUTHOR> Can you say "slippery slope"? I thought you could.</comment>


The real 10 algorithms that dominate our world - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@_marcos_otero/the-real-10-algorithms-that-dominate-our-world-e95fa9f16c04#.67agog79m <comment><USER2> There is (at least) one important missing: the Simplex Algorithm, or more generally algorithms for solving linear programs (LPs). These are used every day to optimize highly complex problems in real world economics.</comment>