The Great World Census

Atelier · Tue 20/12/2011 21:58:43

I'm planning to write a dystopian novel, and I've thought of a good prelude. A catalogue of information is being compiled by an international corporation, which details the lives of eight hundred million people. It includes their names, genders, birthdays, where they live, where they were born, where they went to school, where they went to University, what they studied and with who, who they talk to most often, their flat mates, their favourite movie, who they're in a relationship with, who they were in a relationship with, reams of private chat logs, where they worked and when and how long, who their siblings or parents or cousins are, and in most cases, literally hundreds of photos of them at the park, or at the pub, or with their family. Indeed, so limitless is this company's information, it's not even impossible to tell exactly where these photos were taken. They may have a GPS stamp applied from the camera that took it.

With indelibility, all of this information is on this company's records; stored on hundreds of servers across the world with practically unlimited space, available for human recall at any time. And whether intentional or not, all of this data is given unconditionally by each person listed, at their complete discretion.

The way this company extracts information is through a private, personal profile, where people add the above data to share with their friends and family, who also have profiles. In the most extreme cases, people share every aspect of their lives. Others are more sparing, and may only add what they wish to before they move on, or give false information, accidentally or otherwise. Nonetheless, the net useful information retained by the company is still vast beyond comprehension.

As you may have guessed, I'm talking about Facebook, who have information on almost 1/6th of humans on the planet. They have data on at least one of the above variables, not including name, gender, and birthday. One company knows at least one thing about eight hundred million people.

I decided to 'unplug' myself as it were following their newest Timeline update. I knew it was in the pipeline long before but never realised it would turn out to be so sinister. It pretty much collates all the information they have into quite literally a timeline of your life for people to view. Obviously it starts from the date you were born (including a photo) and works up to the present. I've never seen anything so impersonal and synthetic. It's just a projection of your virtual, imitative life which lives on Facebook's servers.

And if it wasn't blatant enough, it even says on their website that Facebook encourages people to add more events to the timeline that are out of an online context. Eg, "Got engaged!" "Went on holiday to X!"

I have hardly any information on there, but some of my friends get very personal with their updates and the information they share. Surely I can't be the only one who sees what's really going on, behind all these 'improvements' hedged with claims of convenience and gimmickry, right?

Ali · Tue 20/12/2011 22:12:24

I think privacy is important (unlike Paul 'privacy is for paedos' McMullan), but I think this is a slightly hysterical response. I agree harvesting personal data for market research and advertising is distasteful and bordering on immoral, but since the information is given voluntarily I think it's not such a big issue.

When all the dictators are dead and democracy is free from the influence of international conglomerates, then we can start worrying about facebook.

Stupot · Tue 20/12/2011 22:35:44

I was also a tad disturbed by this Timeline feature... Atelier's response may sound a bit rash, but if Facebook had started out doing what it does today it would never have gotten away with it. I felt Facebook was too nosy way back in 2007 when I first signed up to it. But on a near monthly basis, they introduce new settings or features that subtley push the boundaries of decency and trust, to the point where the FB of 2007 seems like nothing. In other words, we've become complacent.

I'm not ready to delete my account (they've got me, I'm hooked), but I can basically see where Atelier is coming from and am kind of envious in a sense.

Ponch · Tue 20/12/2011 23:20:21

This is why I've never had a Facebook account. Well, that and the fact that I hate everyone.

Dualnames · Wed 21/12/2011 00:15:42

Well, frankly the facebook is too little to contain me or describe me. And I'm not roleplaying. I'm not very good at expressing my character via the web, and that is because I'm an attention whore and I hate attention.

Yeah, I know, just hang on. See I managed to track down c.leksutin some days ago, and he has literally vanished from these forums. Yet, it took me and jimreed about half an hour to get him.

All I say is that whilst being anonymous has many pros, I prefer to stick with the cons of being myself. If anyone judges me by my facebook, then well done.

The most amazing part about dystopian novels/movies ecc, being my favorite kind of anything, is that they base themselves on the comparison of now and then, showing how the human race is literally blind, mean and stupid. Regardless of whether the premise is achieved.

Ponch · Wed 21/12/2011 00:24:33

But you forgot to tell us the most important part: How is c.leksutin doing? Is he on the run from the mob? Is he being hunted by the CIA? The community demands answers!

Baron · Wed 21/12/2011 01:17:37

Quote from: Stupot+ on Tue 20/12/2011 22:35:44
Atelier's response may sound a bit rash

I wouldn't describe writing a dystopian novel as a rash response. Ironic though it may sound, I think dystopian novel writing would likely increase the net happiness of mankind by providing a constructive outlet for the talented yet disenchanted. Let that rage pour out onto the page, brother. That's right. Let it all out.....

Stupot · Wed 21/12/2011 10:59:22

Quote from: Baron on Wed 21/12/2011 01:17:37
Quote from: Stupot+ on Tue 20/12/2011 22:35:44
Atelier's response may sound a bit rash [,but...]
I wouldn't describe writing a dystopian novel as a rash response.

That was more an attempt to balance Ali's "slightly hysterical response" comment.

Atelier · Wed 21/12/2011 11:34:07

Quote from: Ali on Tue 20/12/2011 22:12:24When all the dictators are dead and democracy is free from the influence of international conglomerates, then we can start worrying about facebook.

As far as I can tell Facebook is an international conglomerate.

Or as close to one as possible - it might even be one of the biggest single companies! So much power, in terms of personal data and money, is very dangerous, particularly so when combined. As the second most visited daily website, after Google of course, their status is utterly unique. The next social networking site is Twitter right down at tenth most visited.

If you watch any ad-break nowadays, I guarantee at least one advert will make reference to the company's Facebook page. They're obviously not going to miss out on such a great marketing trick. Not having Facebook renders you socially retarded, for my generation at least. People have no choice but to grow up around social networking sites, constantly in the media and in casual conversation. It's permeated popular culture so much that popular culture is now effectively built around the permeation itself. This results in a relaxed attitude towards them and the copious amounts of information they give only increases the momentum of the powerhouse. People just don't see the bigger picture and realise the potential that Facebook now has. Even if they don't give it voluntarily, they're always sure to wheedle information out of you in indiscriminate ways. Only recently somebody I know was deliberating on who the father of their child was, openly on Facebook. In another case they were congratulating their mum for having an affair. This sort of thing can only come about by ignorance, personal stupidity, and too much trust in a company who doesn't give two shits about you.

Because on Facebook, individualism is dead. Eight hundred million multiplied by the amount of variables supplied equals... a lot of information. I know nobody is sitting behind a computer thousands of miles away, analysing my last status. In all probability, somebody employed by Facebook has never even seen my profile, or even knows my name, because I'm just one of eight hundred million. Complex algorithms calculate who people talk to most, not humans, and no humans are involved when you add somebody as a friend or delete somebody as a friend. But even if that is true, Facebook is still maintained, managed, and accessible by humans at the top-end, meaning all that anonymity in numbers counts for nothing, when they can still easily single you out from the mass.

I would also not like to put my trust in Mark Zuckerberg, a proven hacker. When The Harvard Crimson were going to run an article on him, he hacked into the journalists' emails using their Facebook passwords to manipulate the story. When The Social Network won a Golden Globe for Best Picture, the director David Fincher describes Zuckerberg as 'completely altruistic' which is so ironic it's not even ironic any more.

The only thing I'm worried about is where it will stop. And when it eventually does stop, what's stopping Facebook selling everybody's information as they bow out quietly?

Ali · Wed 21/12/2011 12:05:03

Quote from: Atelier on Wed 21/12/2011 11:34:07
As far as I can tell Facebook is an international conglomerate. Wink Or as close to one as possible - it might even be one of the biggest single companies! So much power, in terms of personal data and money, is very dangerous, particularly so when combined. As the second most visited daily website, after Google of course, their status is utterly unique. The next social networking site is Twitter right down at tenth most visited.

The really big organisations are parent companies we've never heard of. I'm sure Facebook is owned by various organisations we wouldn't want to have over for dinner, but that doesn't make it any more evil than the next tv station or newspaper.

What can Facebook really DO with all this tedious data about our boring lives? Sell us more stuff? Help other people to sell us more stuff?

If we're going to be paranoid, why not be paranoid about electoral fraud in Russia and Congo, lobbyists in Washington and London, abuse of protesters in Egypt and Syria and just about everything in China?

InCreator · Fri 23/12/2011 10:20:36

Facebook can sell your ass to police state government anytime.

Solution is THAT simple: either de-commercialize or provide non-commercial alternative to Facebook. One-platform-fits-all style.
I see no problem in having international human registry. Because facebooks and googlepluses have them anyway already.

Facebook as a social platform has become extremely useful for everyday socializing, I think.
For example -- planning weekend with friends takes a single wall post where before FB it took ten phone calls with maybe ten more ("wait till I check") and loads of arguing who can come, convincing, etc. Same goes for loads of things. Also, it's easy to be in touch, get in touch and checking on people you know.

It's even good for stalking/background checks: someone wants to be my friend, I can instantly check who is he/she associated with, see bits of personal info and photos and make much better choice than I would based only by meet & greet. Not all spying stuff makes you a pervert, infact, it could protect you from one!

What we need is a "facebook standard". Maybe even with fancy ISO numbers and yearly audits. A site that works and looks like facebook, but is protected by law (instead of being prone to be abused by law), servers are accessible for checking, there's no trademarks of stuff owner(s) could hide or distribute or sell, etc. It could even a piece of law be in every constitution, and regulated by law. Worldwide, a heavy online social platform. Which is protected by special laws and human rights.

What I just said is we should legalize facebook and move it out from capitalists' / abusive governments' (fuck you usa, china, saudi arabia, etc) greedy claws.

WHAM · Fri 23/12/2011 10:28:37

@InCreator : If not run by capitalists who make money off of it, who could run something as massive as Facebook? Thousands of servers, terabytes upon terabytes of stored data, designers, testers, janitors, all who get paid to help keep the site up and running, costs in the millions...

How can you de-commercialize something like that? Either the service has to have a price for it's use so it can fund itself, at which point the user base would decrease so far as to make the service worthless, or it can be as it is now: free to use, funded by ads and data distribution to third parties.

I think Facebook is a great free service and I see nothing wrong in it's creators, owners and investors trying to make a buck with it. They have every right!
And when it comes to the loudly discussed "facebook is stealing and selling all your information" -thing, keep in mind who put all that information there in the first place.

InCreator · Fri 23/12/2011 10:32:17

International organizations. Like Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc.
Since it's internet-related I think it would have shitloads of supporters.

WHAM · Fri 23/12/2011 10:33:00

But with what incentive? Where will the money come from? Global Facebook tax?

InCreator · Fri 23/12/2011 10:34:10

Well, how is Wikipedia run? Or any other free, common digital resource? Donations and common effort.
If facebook has 500 million users, all it needs is 1% of it's userbase to donate 1 dollar.

With 5 million dollars a year, I think you can run pretty much everything. And this is sum some philantropists can donate tenfold sometimes.

WHAM · Fri 23/12/2011 10:41:23

Compared to Facebook, Wikipedia is cheap to run. It mostly stores text, hyperlinks and the occasional picture or audio file, one or two per article on average and even these ofthen in poor quality JPEG's. Facebook stores dozens of images per average profile (hell, even I have over a 100 photos on facebook), tons of video and has to have the server capacity for constant bombardment of neverending updates, instant messaging service and more. The difference in scale and scope is immense!

Besides, even Wikipedia seems to be in trouble, what with the nevereding "personal appeals" for more donations to keep the service running. I see no way a service of such magnitude as Facebook could ever be run on donations and common effort alone, unless we limit users to one 800x600 picture per profile and impose other quite drastic limitations on the current concept of facebook. Do that and as a result you will, again, lose the purpose of the service, lose user base and functionality and cause a collapse.

InCreator · Fri 23/12/2011 10:45:04

Well, there's another way.
Let's say, there's Eurobook. A facebook alternative working as European Union's common effort and gets funded by some central commission, with all member countries chipping in. Like any other mutual EU project. Since it's not based on one government alone, it's not subject to abuse, like intelligence agencies tuning in, etc. Regulation would be very strict and control over it too.
The operating cost is joke to most governments anyway, considering what gets spent on social and defense budgets usually... and as mutual effort, it's almost non-noticeable. Facebook costs somewhere between $50-$100 million a year to operate (if google is right). Divided between 27 countries in EU, it's 2-4 millions a year per country. I'm sure most countries give such sums to absolutely idiotic, non-important things annually.

Done!
Now how about Worldbook?

Ali · Fri 23/12/2011 10:56:29

Quote from: InCreator on Fri 23/12/2011 10:20:36
Facebook can sell your ass to police state government anytime.

I don't mean to be antagonistic, but what does that actually mean?

Why does the police state government want to know what my birthday is? Or where I went to school? Or other facts that a police state government would already have access to?

It's rare that I'm on the side of free enterprise (or WHAM), but if you're saying Facebook ought to be nationalised (or in any way taken out of the hands of its owners) then you're talking about the kind of thing only beard wearing socialists like me ever advocate.

And if we're going to legalise stealing from rich people we don't like, there are bigger badder targets for the redistribution of weath!

InCreator · Fri 23/12/2011 11:04:04

It means that if you're going to be new Julian Assange on your facebook wall or organize riots like middle-east did, your friendly neighborhood KGB-(whatever) goes to facebook, asks for your posts and tortures you in cellar based on them. It also asks for who your friends are, what did they private message you about your crazy ideas, and grabs them aswell.

That's what I meant about "laws protecting the whole thing".

In recent hacker attacks, twitter did exactly that: Gave personal info out to FBI.

And it's not wealth in terms of money I want to redistribute, but common resource or being able to socialize digitally.

Money needs to be redistributed too, but that's another thread and another talk.

WHAM · Fri 23/12/2011 11:24:29

Quote from: InCreator on Fri 23/12/2011 11:04:04
It means that if you're going to be new Julian Assange on your facebook wall or organize riots like middle-east did, your friendly neighborhood KGB-(whatever) goes to facebook, asks for your posts and tortures you in cellar based on them. It also asks for who your friends are, what did they private message you about your crazy ideas, and grabs them aswell.

Yeah, It's a good thing modern cell-phones and other means of communication than facebook are completely tampering-proofed and cannot be observed by any government related parties whatsoeve... Oh! Wait! I see what you did there!

What you seem to want is to change something that has always been. The difference is that instead of a manager in a printing company giving out your information to police because you had your "Anarchy everywhere" and "fuck the police" fliers printed there, you are now afraid that Facebook will do the same.

And what if you tried to organize an anti-EU riot in Worldbook that is funded by the EU? You don't think they might send your information forward to some police / secret service representatives so they can pay you a visit the next time you post on Worlbook how you are, right now, enjoying coffee at the local coffee shop? HA!