Current Facebook Terms/Issues with

[shredzilla]

You're right, rather than jack the Twitter thread, we should just discuss here.

It's cool they reacted. The new TOS are much better (though not great). My confidence in Facebook's ability to not "be evil" is both bolstered by the fact they responded, but still weakened overall by the fact that they made the change in the first place.

99.99...% of corporations are evil, because like it or not, money is the root of all evil. No matter what, as long as there is money there will be evil people to exploit the use of it, unless somehow we all evolve as a human species to be benevolent creatures who look for the betterment of every living being.

You can argue whether to use the term 'evil' or not, or personify it any way you want to, but it's a pretty common fact now days, and you can see it in practically every marketable substance we use.

I guess my point is, you've already succumbed to the evil. They (Capitalists) have already won, and bought and sold you. If Capitalism was completely benign, then we'd have a great system. But the reason our economy has reached a tanking point is a direct result of greed, and mis-use of money.

And then my further point is, so why bitch at Facebook? They're just playing the game like any other company. Take your fight to Capitalism itself, cuz I guarantee you every company that you endorse by purchasing their product is using the same underhanded tactics as they are, but you're just not noticing it as much.

[Jeremy]

I have to strongly disagree with a lot of your post, and I'm sorry for picking on issues not related to the topic, but I'll address that too.

99.99...% of corporations are evil, because like it or not, money is the root of all evil.

When I compare societies that use money with societies that don't, I'd much prefer to live in a society that does. Yes some corporations exploit other people, and yes in some circumstances that exploitation is a serious threat to people's standards of living, but in countries with strong government regulation that doesn't happen, or happens a lot less. I'd much rather live in a country like Australia, Denmark or even the USA than I'd want to live in the indigenous societies in places like the Amazon, Africa or Papua New Guinea where children get killed because their uncle died or women have their vaginas sewn up and their clitoris cut off. I'm not entirely sure what "evil" really means, but these are examples that I think match my vague description and I don't see any money at the root of the problem. I'd love to see an example of a society that does not use any money and doesn't have any cultural practices or behaviours that would be deemed evil if the same thing occurred in your street in a Western capitalistic democracy.

No matter what, as long as there is money there will be evil people to exploit the use of it, unless somehow we all evolve as a human species to be benevolent creatures who look for the betterment of every living being.

Possibly this is true, but at the same time there are plenty of societies, indeed most societies, where these people are a minority, and not only that but there are plenty of societies where they have no serious influence on the running of society either. You're making a generalisation based probably on America, and even then in an exaggerated manor and you're focusing on the exceptions rather than the normal. I don't think money and capitalism have anything to do with it. We could easily rewrite you statement as follows;

"No matter what, as long as there are people there will be evil people who exploit others."

But the reason our economy has reached a tanking point is a direct result of greed, and mis-use of money.

Sure, but when you say "our economy" you're really talking about the American economy. Some countries have much stronger regulations on debt and even in America it wasn't until a change in debt policy in 2001 that lead to the current economic crisis. If you're using the current economic crisis as evidence of greed and mis-use of money in the system, why didn't that create as serious a crisis pre 2001? The other serious issue responsible for the crisis is not greed and money mis-use but the so called "ludic fallacy" - economists applied simplified models and "laboratory" statistics and looked at the odds but not the consequences in risk management, leading them to not take into account the real world and not look at the possibility of things occurring by chance that their models didn't account for. These people were clearly not evil, but well intentioned and even won Nobel prizes. They just had too much faith in ideas that turned out to be wrong. That's not evil and it's not greed, it's just human error.


Regarding facebook;

I really don't care what they do with my information. I view facebook as essentially a public place to express things and communicate. If I wanted things to be private I would keep them off facebook. I think the complaints about the terms and services are reactionary and trivial, and there are plenty of issues that people should be more concerned with. In all serious what is the worst that could legally come from this? You get targeted junk mail? It's just as easy to throw out. You don't need to read it. Learn to say; "Sorry I'm not interested." Worry about problems that you can't deal with in less than 10 seconds.

[shredzilla]

If you're using the current economic crisis as evidence of greed and mis-use of money in the system, why didn't that create as serious a crisis pre 2001? The other serious issue responsible for the crisis is not greed and money mis-use but the so called "ludic fallacy" - economists applied simplified models and "laboratory" statistics and looked at the odds but not the consequences in risk management, leading them to not take into account the real world and not look at the possibility of things occurring by chance that their models didn't account for. These people were clearly not evil, but well intentioned and even won Nobel prizes. They just had too much faith in ideas that turned out to be wrong. That's not evil and it's not greed, it's just human error.

The practices of the corporations who stretched the economists' vision are 'evil'. Again, I can't come up with a better term for evil. "Someone/thing who intentionally does wrong to others for their own betterment". Something along those lines.

I am speaking mostly about America, I realize that by doing so I may leave other countries out, but I'm speaking about a company that originated here, and policies that were executed here, that are similar to other American corporations, whose policies are inherently malicious and "evil".

I also used the phrase "money is the root of all evil" rather loosely as a generic reference to how Capitalism has shaped America. You're right, it's the people that enact poor policy. The same way that most religions aren't inherently bad or evil, it's those that carry out maliciousness that are. But to chalk it up to human error in this case is somewhat naive in my opinion.

[Jeremy]

I reject the notion that the people who caused the economic crisis were intentionally acting for their own betterment at the expense of others.

Lending money to people who can't pay it back is certainly not in the interests of the people lending the money. Buying debt that turns out to be bad debt is not in the interests of the buyer. These are the two main causes of the economic crisis (because of the reasons I mentioned before).

[shredzilla]

I reject the notion that the people who caused the economic crisis were intentionally acting for their own betterment at the expense of others.

Haha wow you have a pretty naive outlook on post-modern American economics. Yeah, all corporate capitalists are saints I don't have the time or patience to explain it in explicit detail. I was merely making a statement on the evils of Capitalism in American society, especially related to big corporations. The government is also tied in with it, there was practically no regulation on economic policy for many years, and the regulations that were there could be paid off by corporate lobbyists. If you don't believe it, there's nothing more I can say to convince you. Do some reading on the subject.

[Jeremy]

So I'm wrong, but you don't have the time to tell me why I'm wrong?

Can you please take 30 seconds to give your explanation for the specific causes of the current economic crisis. Don't say "greed," but specifically say something like "poor risk management and lending policy on behalf of the banks that are now almost bankrupt and have lost half their jobs, as well as more money then has ever been made in profits of investments in banking shares." That didn't take me long to read, and it's an opinion backed up by people Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who probably can't be described as "naive" as easily as you used that label towards me.

[shredzilla]

Okay dude, you win. It's not that I don't have time to explain necessarily, in fact I already did. But I definitely don't have time to argue with you about it for 4 pages. Argument conceded. Cheers.

[Jeremy]

Translation; Chris has no idea what he's talking about so he's trying to avoid the discussion but wants to try and make it look like I'm wrong without putting forward any details at all, because he knows none.

Merely saying that the economic crisis was caused by a lack of regulation does not in anyway suggest that the problem was caused by a people deliberately exploiting others. The only explanation you've given doesn't even support your claim. Running away from the debate is a good move.

It's interesting that you suggest that I need to read more on the crisis, given I've put forward specific details and you've put forward no details at all. I'd be happy to write a 2000 word referenced essay on the subject when at some point; I've been reading as much as I can find on the subject for the last few months now. I'd also be happy to give a list of authors, books and documents that I've found useful to the subject if you actually want to put forward educated opinions.

[bigdirtyfoot]

Hey I use Facebook too you guys! Don't forget about me...

[Laroche]

Translation; Chris has no idea what he's talking about so he's trying to avoid the discussion but wants to try and make it look like I'm wrong without putting forward any details at all, because he knows none.

Merely saying that the economic crisis was caused by a lack of regulation does not in anyway suggest that the problem was caused by a people deliberately exploiting others. The only explanation you've given doesn't even support your claim. Running away from the debate is a good move.

It's interesting that you suggest that I need to read more on the crisis, given I've put forward specific details and you've put forward no details at all. I'd be happy to write a 2000 word referenced essay on the subject when at some point; I've been reading as much as I can find on the subject for the last few months now. I'd also be happy to give a list of authors, books and documents that I've found useful to the subject if you actually want to put forward educated opinions.

...

[Blue_turnip]

How would billionaire philanthropists donate if there wasn't any money?

Do you really reckon people wouldn't be greedy and 'evil' if capitalism didn't exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Sorry, my finger slipped and I accidentally inserted those links.

Haha wow you have a pretty naive outlook on post-modern American economics.

Really?

I reject the notion that the people who caused the economic crisis were intentionally acting for their own betterment at the expense of others.

[ ] Naive

99.99...% of corporations are evil, because like it or not, money is the root of all evil.

[x] Naive

I guess my point is, you've already succumbed to the evil. They (Capitalists) have already won, and bought and sold you.

[x] Naive

Okay dude, you win. It's not that I don't have time to explain necessarily, in fact I already did. But I definitely don't have time to argue with you about it for 4 pages. Argument conceded. Cheers.

So if you don't have time to discuss the topic at hand, why did you create this thread?

I think arguing for 4 pages is underrated. I think it is to the benefit of all involved because even if no one concludes that they're 'wrong', it makes them actually think about why they support their stance and actually validate it. I can't speak for everyone else but for me a discussion never should be had just so you can 'win' it.

I love it how people criticise Jeremy for 'arguing' too much. Condescendingly telling someone they've 'won', suggesting that you're so busy doing far more important things, and ditching the thread is of such, such, such lower form than continuing to contribute to the discussion or even really validate your claims, however weak they are.

[shredzilla]

Here, watch this. This is the last I will be posting in this topic. I just refuse to argue on the internet anymore, sorry guys.

http://www.crisisofcredit.com/

[Jeremy]

Having watched that video there are a couple of things that perhaps should be pointed out.

In my initial post in this topic I outlined two things that were the primary causes of the crisis.

1. Lack of regulation.

2. Bad risk management.


Chris tells me I need to "do some reading on the subject" and that I have a "naive outlook on post-modern American economics" and yet posts a video we can assumes supports his position which we can also assume somehow contradicts my opinion that in fact essentially supports it. Perhaps it may help Chris if he did some reading on the subject of my actual opinions. Of course he's not going to participate in the discussion, just say stupid things and then not respond.

[QuantumBalance]

Jeremy you should just have your own subforum.

We could call it Jeremy's response to goddamned everything.

Oh fuck it it would always be the same anyway

I disagree because blah blah blah blah blah


example

Ah I love the sky, its so blue..

Jeremy: I disagree, the sky isnt blue, its really the light reflecting off the blah blah blah which makes you percieve that blah blah blah and therefor its not really a color blah blah also sometimes its not blue blah blah and your blanket statement of its so blue is incorrect blah blah blah SHUT THE FUCK UP!

-

<3

DUDE WE GET IT ALREADY YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT! YOU WIN ALREADY JUST GO AWAY!

Sometimes the stoners just wanna talk a bunch of nonsense! Get it?! Stand in a hacky sack circle and complain about shit, spoutin bullshit. Can't you just let us without being the idiot nerd whose like NO GUYS WELL ACTUALLY...

UGH GGET A CLUE!

[Rieferman]

[Frank_Sinatra]

There's a great ep of This American Life - the radio version - called The Global Pool of Money. IIRC its a joint production with NPR's news division. I will necessarily have to simplify quite a bit.

Anyway, they tell the story from a variety of perspectives both systemic and individual. On a systemic level, they discuss the booming Chinese, Indian, and other developing economies which suddenly generated a tremendous amount of capital looking for investment. For various reasons, a tremendous amount of this money was invested in mortgage backed securities (mostly having to do with perceived safety of the investment based upon historical performance and statistical modeling - as Jeremy was saying, there were statistical models applied with critical 'real life' variables not included - more on that later).

This created increased demand for mortgage backed securities, which created increased demand for mortgages to bundle into these securities.

On an individual level, various companies and the people who worked for them set out to meet the increased demand. Some were not ethical. Some simply wanted to generate x dollars in new debt every month that their company could turn around and sell. In some cases this meant pushing mortgages that obviously could not be paid back. We've all heard of sub-prime and other non-traditional financing models that were created in the last few years, which helped meet demand for more mortgages and thus more mortgage backed securities. Again, the ep of This American Life goes into greater detail than I can here on the story. But basically, at least some of these guys new they were sticking people with bad investments just so they could live extravagent lifestyles.

Generally speaking, it is the job of the real estate agent/banker to be the expert, to turn down bad investments because they are not in their best interests, or the best interests of the debtor. But for several years, the financial services world tricked itself into thinking that nobody can lose. The models were showing that mortgages were always safe. But because of sub-prime and other vehicles, mortgages weren't as safe an investment as they had been in years past, but the models were never updated.

Systemically, openings were created for people to behave inethically, and they did because it made them money. Some did clearly know that they were acting with complete disregard for others, and getting rich at their likely expense. So... Jeremy and Chris both make good points, just seem to be placing the emphasis a bit differently.

As far as the theoretical question of the inherent moral capacity of capitalism... oh fuck it.

I think this was about Facebook? I don't know, I read the new TOS & some of the criticism, I think the criticism was somewhat exaggerated, and I agree with whoever posted that they shouldn't view Facebook as private space, no matter how tempting it might be to do so. And I like run on sentences. And fragments.

EDIT: And I may have missed a round of TOS changes - I'm looking back at what happened and when and am somewhat unsure of exactly how it all went down. Can anyone explain?

[Blue_turnip]

In finance last semester I had to do an assignment on the subprime mortgage crisis and used this. Pretty much sums up the subprime mortgage crisis.

http://www.businesspundit.com/sub-prime/

[Jeremy]

Good stuff Ollie.

Also thanks for a insightful analysis Nathan. I have two points to make;

1. Chris stated that "Money is the root of all evil" and that the crisis was caused by 99.99% of corporations being evil. Even if we take that to be figurative speaking, we can see that crisis still probably would have happened if 0% percent of the lenders were only worried about making their own profits. The problem, as you say, is that people mismanaged the risk and actually thought that these loans wouldn't cause any problems. That's not an issue of greed, it's just making mistakes.

2. It's obviously completely counter-productive for greedy people to give loans to people who can't pay them back. The people giving out these loans have suffered as much as anybody else has in the crisis. Greedy people who understood the problems with what was going on would not have given out the loans or had anything to do with them. Only people who didn't think things would go bad would have had anything to do with it - so the problem is again obviously not greed, but ignorance*. Greedy informed people would not have contributed to the problem at all. Well meaning ignorant people would have contributed significantly and have thought they're helping people out by giving them opportunities to own their own houses and move towards financial security. To suggest it was greed really is naive.


*Not even ignorance, but just too much faith in economists - and ones who had won Nobel prizes too. It is, perhaps, a good lesson in critical thinking and questioning authority.

[Allan]

99.99...% of corporations are evil, because like it or not, money is the root of all evil. No matter what, as long as there is money there will be evil people to exploit the use of it, unless somehow we all evolve as a human species to be benevolent creatures who look for the betterment of every living being.

I'll get to Facebook in a minute:

Money is not the root of all evil. I don't know what is, but it's not money. Money is good. People use it for evil things. Abstracting money away as the root of it all is an easy excuse to let human behavior off the hook. "Money made me do it."

I would say (as a mostly socialist-leaning person) that your attacks on capitalism in general are pretty much unfounded. Then again, I wouldn't say our current global economic system has much to do with capitalism at all. It's all about corporatism taking advantage of the capitalistic tendencies of human nature.

Have any of of you seen "The Corporation"? http://www.thecorporation.com/

That film pretty much sums it up for me. Current laws create people out of corporations; people with all the inherent rights, and NONE of the responsibilities. Limited liability allows people to literally get away with murder, and corporations owning other corporations essentially amounts to slavery. Corporations being legally bound to seek out bottom-line profits without consideration to anything: now THAT is certainly evil.

On to Facebook:

I really don't care what they do with my information. I view facebook as essentially a public place to express things and communicate.

I, I, I. You may not care what they do with your info, but I sure as hell do. I have rights. And I would thank you not to dismiss them so easily.

If I wanted things to be private I would keep them off facebook.

And where would you put them? Some other service? Sorry. Other services have similar TOS. And if you find one that doesn't: what happens when one of your friends shares it on Facebook? Do you see where this is going? Suddenly a free and open internet becomes a place where anything you share--anywhere--becomes fair game for big corporations to manipulate without any regard to your rights as a publisher. Again, you may not feel that your data is worth anything, but please speak for yourself in that regard.

I think the complaints about the terms and services are reactionary and trivial, and there are plenty of issues that people should be more concerned with.

Then you're not paying attention, man This is a major issue. It's tied in with the intellectual property rights debate in general, and your dismissal of the importance of this is surprising. It's about basic freedom of speech, and the ability for corporations to control and/or modify public discussion. How is that not one of the most important issues we face? How are we supposed to openly communicate with each other if the tools we use to do so end up disempowering us and stripoing us of our rights?

In all serious what is the worst that could legally come from this? You get targeted junk mail? It's just as easy to throw out. You don't need to read it. Learn to say; "Sorry I'm not interested." Worry about problems that you can't deal with in less than 10 seconds.

This is exceedingly naive, Jeremy I don't know what "targeted junk mail" has to do with this issue, but it's certainly not germane. Think more along the lines of publishing personal, private photos without permission; think blackmail, SLAP suits, and coercion; think suppression of democracy in general.

Perhaps later I'll dig in to all of the (myriad) different ways that Facebook (and any other social network) could screw you over with your own information (and that of your friends), but for now I think it is sufficed to say that you have not examined the issue with any depth, and that you should trust me when I say that Terms of Service like that enacted by Facebook are dangerous to personal privacy, freedom of speech, and democratic development of society in general.

Check out http://www.dataportability.org/ -- if you don't see the relevance, I urge you think a little deeper on the topic.

[Tsiangkun]

As an example of what could happen :

1. User logs in, is unaware that the TOS has changed.
2. User uploads photo to Facebook.
3. Facebook deems photo inappropriate, closes down account.
4. Facebook takes content from the closed account (remember, they own rights to it past account closure) and sell it to an ad agency without the user's approval or notification and without the user/copyright holder being compensated.

Don't like it?

Well, you can't take them to court because the TOS binds you to mandatory arbitration and who do you think is going to win that?

You?

I'd put my money on the company that chooses and pays the arbitrator !