1863
Automatically creating a shadow account for everyone on Instagram?
Even allowing people to follow that account?
Sounds like they really wanted to push Threads out the door in a big way.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
1863 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
28340 readers
207 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think something that a lot of the comments are missing here is the fact that threads, Instagram and Facebook all have been migrated from individual accounts to ‘meta’ accounts. I’m certain that we will see this happen with many platforms unless there is a serious shift in data protection laws. I don’t personally think it’s great that it’s the case but that’s just how it is. The meta platform is quite similar to how google migrated YouTube users to google accounts way back in the day. This monolithic structure ensures that they can keep your user data in a more streamlined database. From a sys admin and a business perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a user who doesn’t care and already uses all of those services perspective it makes a lot of sense. From a privacy conscious user perspective it makes no sense. Then again metas platform is in no way for the user who cares how their data is being handled.
I guess another perspective is talking about interoperability. It kind of feels like they are taking the web3 (I know it’s a loaded term) approach but instead of applying it in a way that allows free development and communication in a way that basically pulls from decentralized/distributed databases you instead get a centralized monolithic model that creates interoperability within their own walled garden.
Dude there are people with the name poo poo pee pee on Facebook. I regret ever using my real name with Google and Facebook
Meanwhile, I got my first ever Facebook ban because someone salty about losing an argument reported me for using a fake name. I was using my real name, which has a Scandinavian letter in it, and had to submit a picture of my fucking passport for fb to unlock my account 🤦
I do find it weird how so many people for both claimed their accounts were suspended or banned for not using a real name, when I never gave them my real name and have kept both of those accounts the entire time without issue. Maybe it's because I don't actually use Facebook; but I still use a lot of Google's shit because there isn't anything better yet.
It's about email if you make account using email and email name and your name not match you will be ban. If you use your mobile number you will not be ban because they don't know your real name you will only get banned if someone report you for using fake name
I had my fake account deactivated for using a made up name a few years ago. I was forced to giving it a real fake name instead of a comedy one. Haven't used it years now so I don't even know if it's still working.
This is very important. Users choose to give their data over to these companies.
They should have that choice, regardless of the repercussions.
It's not really a choice though, is it? They can't access fb without "choosing" that and for many, Facebook used to be/is the only way some people have to socialize or just contact family members.
It's the student loans of privacy.
Not only that, there are parts of the world where FB provides the internet for free and its prohibitively expensive for those people to access the internet otherwise. You can't realistically say those people have a choice.
That's not even broaching the topic of whether or not we should give people "the choice". Generally things that are known to be harmful if used in certain ways aren't allowed to be sold to the general public. We take away "choice" all the time to protect the average idiot, I don't see how this is any different.
Especially as in some countries, fb is The Internet for most people. Without a fb account I have no idea about events in my area and miss out on private sales.
They do have a choice, just like we can choose to use the fediverse instead of the metaverse.
They chose what's popular, regardless of the consequences. They should be free to do that just as we should be free to do this.
Personally, I think this should be more popular, but I don't control the world and don't care to.
Have you ever heard of a little thing called coercion? False choice? Emotional blackmail?
To pretend that it's a straightforward choice is downright asinine.
Lol, what?
They have something that people need. Not kinda want. NEED. They know this and they're using that leverage to make people agree to things that they never would otherwise. It may technically be legal, but it's extremely unethical and nowhere near an unencumbered choice.
Do you get it now? If not, that's too bad. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Err.. no they don't.
I think you need to brush up on the definitions of "want" and "need," lol.