Jump to content

A Theory on why FB and Google+ kill SL Avatar accounts


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2741 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I've been in the process of transplanting myself from WinXP to Win10. (stop snickering!) In this process I've had the oppotunity to see what Google thinks about me .. specifically who it thinks I am. It has made some interesting discoveries and connections:

  • It has offered to connect my SL Avatar account to my RL wife, sons and daugther's accounts ... both their RL and net-name identities
  • It has offered to connect my SL Avatar account to an old business associate's account .. on a professional connection site.
  • It has offered to sell me products that my wife searched for on HER computer, and vice versa

So maybe the reason Google+ and FaceBook sometimes squash accounts that are for SL or virtual identities is .. they CANNOT link you to a RL person or identity? The only reason they haven't squashed mine yet is that they have figured out who I really am.

I am cautious about linking the two identities, but not scrupulous about it. Clearly I've left enough breadcrumbs that Google and FB have figured me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its obvious and there is no need for a theory.

I'm not using Google+ but facebook and the main reason why facebook does not want any sort of face profile (this does not only include SL avatars) is very simple:  Since having a facebook account is free, the main source of money for FB is advertisement and they make themself into a desireable place for advertisement by claiming to get the right sort of advertisement to the right person by taking what kind of data they can find in your profile.

Now this requires that your profile actually represents you and not some made up character. Companies want real potentional customers...or at least the illusion of them (Because, to be honest, the selection of advertisement is still pretty predictable and lame).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, once you think it through to the conclusion then it seems pretty obvious. But since most folks haven't had the desire or motivation to sit and think it out, I figured I'd save a few some time and just "put it out there."

So ... does this mean they have a fleet of eyeballs trained to watch for "we can't figure out who this is" notifications? I wonder how much that job pays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

So ... does this mean they
have a fleet of eyeballs trained
to watch for "we can't figure out who this is" notifications?
I wonder how much that job pays?

It ain't eyeballs watching, it's the 1's and 0's of algorithms.   And math quants are remunerated very handsomely; and more so when they produce (a.k.a. identify you).  Most of these doctors of mathematics work on Wall Street (where the 1%'ers earn their living).  Google FB employ the others.

It is best not to play the game.  No facebook, no google+, and no linkedin, and I am still alive.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


DejaHo wrote:

It ain't eyeballs watching, it's the 1's and 0's of algorithms.   And math quants are remunerated very handsomely; and more so when they produce (a..k.a. identify you).  Most of these doctors of mathematics work on Wall Street (where the 1%'ers earn their living).  And Google FB employs the others.

Her Majesty's Government employs some to sew mailbags.

Alec - it when the fall guy doesn't rat out his bosses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....that'd be her majesty's govt......and not the sheeple's, govt., of course.

Interestingly, the city slicker 'patsy' didn't look too concerned, looking at pics of him attending Liz's court  in the papers this morning.  One would almost think some deal had occured the sheeple don't know about.

Perish the thought.

More champagne and cigars for the barclay bros. et al.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that FB will decide on something like this:

"If you want to use FaceBook and you live in Germany then you must agree to these extra violations of your legal right to privacy. If you choose not to accept these terms then you may not use FaceBook."

Because as has been said, they only make money on real people. If they just give users the option to agree "Yeah, I know I'm giving up protected rights, but I don't care. I NEED MY FB!!" then they're in the clear .. legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most countries you do not have the right to give up your rights.  This same think cam up on a smaller scale with Aristotle verification.  It is actually illegal in Germany to waive your privacy rights. In the US, you may waive your rights but you can also reclaim them at any time even retroactively.

I expect to see FB stopping service in Germany and waiting to see if other EU countries follow them. Somewhere between losing Germany's members and letting all of Europe stay without RL identification lies the maximum profit line.  There are accountants and lawyers finding that line now and nothing will change until that line is crossed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just add on something about this

is a distinction in the Germany legislation between public and non-public providers

non-public providers are companies and citizens

public providers are government agencies

+

a person is able to give their consent to a non-public provider for the purpose that is being asked

if the non-public provider states that a purpose of their service is to provide other parties with your details, given them by you, then you can consent to this

if you do not consent then the non-public provider has no obligation to provide you with their service

+

a non-public provider (#1) cannot share your details without your consent. Unless they got it from another provider (#2), who collected it from you, and you have given (#2) consent to share, for the purpose stated

provider (#1) who got your details from provider (#2) doesnt have to get your consent directly from you. You already gave it. Provider (#1) can share your details with provider (#3), according to their contract with provider (#2)

provider (#2) is the legal owner of the data containing your details. Is their data. Not you or yours. The details are yours, the data is not. bc you gave them your details, encoded as data, and you consented to share for the purpose

German law is not only about who providers can share with, but also what is the purpose of sharing. Non-public providers have to also be explicit in telling us what is the purpose when asking for consent

 FB actual got into trouble with a German High Court over their Friend Finder thingy. The consent to share provision in the FB ToS wasnt explicit enough to cover sending random messages about us to other users we dont know. The court said that FB has to get our consent to do this. Like change the ToS

+

a public provider (gov agency) has a obligation to provide you with their service

a agency cannot provide your details (encoded as data, or in writing or verbally) to other government agencies and non-public providers. Nor can they ask you to consent to this. Where a government agency does share your details then can only be done according to the governing legislation of the particular agency

+

basically

the consent law applies to our relationship with non-public providers

there is no consent law that applies to our relationship with public providers (gov agencies)

the Cannot Share Rule (except by specific legislation) that applies to government agencies sometimes gets mixed up with the By Consent Rule that applies to private companies and citizens 

+

on the specific point

FB policy of real names was since upheld by a German Court of Appeal. It overturned the lower court decision bc By Consent Rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hoshi Kenin wrote:

Interestingly, the city slicker 'patsy' didn't look too concerned, looking at pics of him attending Liz's court  in the papers this morning.


He's autistic; Asperger's Syndrome. At least, that's what one of his defences was. Although I am not sure how it could be a defence. Maybe he was hoping for a nice secure mental health bed, rather than forced gardening in an open prison.

Alec - the smile on his wife's face, though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ever created an ad on Fb and bought a campaign it would be obvious why Fb deletes accounts with fake identity. 

For example, people have the ability to check in or add a location to their posts, this way, when I buy an advertisement on Fb, I can target only people that live in certain city or visit a specific location.

Also target the age, gender, occupation, interests, etc. Fake profiles put fake information and since Facebook needs to pay huge amounts of money to store and manage enormous amounts of data, they won't waste money to store our fake infos about virtual lifes, photos of our barbie dolls and their houses. They will either ask you to enter correct infos or shut down your account! Nothing's for free lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:

i just add on something about this

is a distinction in the Germany legislation between public and non-public providers

non-public providers are companies and citizens

public providers are government agencies

+

a person is able to give their consent to a non-public provider for the purpose that is being asked

if the non-public provider states that a purpose of their service is to provide other parties with your details, given them by you, then you can consent to this

if you do not consent then the non-public provider has no obligation to provide you with their service

+

a non-public provider (#1) cannot share your details without your consent. Unless they got it from another provider (#2), who collected it from you, and you have given (#2) consent to share, for the purpose stated

provider (#1) who got your details from provider (#2) doesnt have to get your consent directly from you. You already gave it. Provider (#1) can share your details with provider (#3), according to their contract with provider (#2)

provider (#2) is the legal owner of the data containing your details. Is their data. Not you or yours. The details are yours, the data is not. bc you gave them your details, encoded as data, and you consented to share for the purpose

German law is not only about who providers can share with, but also what is the purpose of sharing. Non-public providers have to also be explicit in telling us what is the purpose when asking for consent

 FB actual got into trouble with a German High Court over their Friend Finder thingy. The consent to share provision in the FB ToS wasnt explicit enough to cover sending random messages about us to other users we dont know. The court said that FB has to get our consent to do this. Like change the ToS

+

a public provider (gov agency) has a obligation to provide you with their service

a agency cannot provide your details (encoded as data, or in writing or verbally) to other government agencies and non-public providers. Nor can they ask you to consent to this. Where a government agency does share your details then can only be done according to the governing legislation of the particular agency

+

basically

the consent law applies to our relationship with non-public providers

there is no consent law that applies to our relationship with public providers (gov agencies)

the Cannot Share Rule (except by specific legislation) that applies to government agencies sometimes gets mixed up with the By Consent Rule that applies to private companies and citizens 

+

on the specific point

FB policy of real names was since upheld by a German Court of Appeal. It overturned the lower court decision bc By Consent Rule

Excellent summary iri .. thank you.

And yup, I had a feeling there would be a way found to circumvent (go around) the Privacy Laws. Especially for a company that pumps as much into the local economy as FaceBook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Bobbie Faulds wrote:

Actually, FB is probably going to have to stop requiring RL identity info for accounts. A recent court decision in Germany finds that it violates German privacy laws.

I doubt this will change anything. FB will not care and wiggle its way around any court decision, if necessary. And what are they going to do against FB anyway? Nothin effective, thats for sure. The worst thing that could happen is, that FB wouldn't provide its service in Germany anymore, which is not likely but still...I rather use my real name (as I currently do) instead of suddenly losing my account. I rarely post anything, but use it for networking for one of my hobbies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Tamara Artis wrote:

If you ever created an ad on Fb and bought a campaign it would be obvious why Fb deletes accounts with fake identity. 

For example, people have the ability to check in or add a location to their posts, this way, when I buy an advertisement on Fb, I can target only people that live in certain city or visit a specific location.

Also target the age, gender, occupation, interests, etc. Fake profiles put fake information and since Facebook needs to pay huge amounts of money to store and manage enormous amounts of data, they won't waste money to store our fake infos about virtual lifes, photos of our barbie dolls and their houses. They will either ask you to enter correct infos or shut down your account! Nothing's for free lol

You are on the money. :)

Follow the money a little higher and you find that Facebook already has a very unstable, very low-trust economy regarding ads. They can't 'crack down' on one type of click-fraud because then ad campaigns would fail and the network would begin to lose its value (similar to services like Twitter and Tumblr, which are hard to monetise).

Facebook choose to shed the 'obvious fakes' because this improves their image and cultivates the idea that Facebook vets its ecosystem for the benefit of advertisers (Talk to real people! Engage with your fans!) - the added bonus is that most often, a 'fake' user will still want to participate in the bubble of social media, and will then do so under an accurate name. Principles sell cheap and each Native American that Facebook bans sends the message "advertise with us and you'll get to real people" to its advertising sponsors - a claim that few web-ad networks can make and still be taken seriously.

The 'real people', of course, are consumers rather than (for example) people who are more likely to play identity politics, foster sympathetic or sharing attitudes or engage in activism, or come from cultures and societies with values that don't focus on acquisition (e.g. natural or Open Source movements). It also helps project the idea that the issue of "fake users" becomes small enough to be seen as "managable" (it's not) and helps marginalise people that advertisers don't like anyway - those who know the game. Targeting SL users is accidental - we fit all of the above to varying degrees.

Under this policy, Facebook can market its advertising pool as one of the biggest and most reliable in the world and still rip off both sides of the advertising ecosystem. So they know culling accounts is a risk that they can afford. Taking on click-farms, however, they likely cannot.

Couple more links:-

HuffPo: How Facebook Likes Get Bought and Sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those videos regarding the click farms and fake likes were interesting.  Their existence had never occurred to me, but in retrospect makes sense, as it seems if there is a possibility of making money from something, there will be someone, someplace giving it a try.   

I used to be an administrator on a page for a very small church in a very small town.   I was always perplexed by looking at the countries our 'likes' were from, but these videos shed some light on that.  

Personally, I have been removing most all of my page likes from FB pages, and removing almost all 'friends' except for family and a few co-workers.  I no longer use my FB login for logging into any other site either.   I've always been wary of clicking through on FB ads to begin with, generally going to a vendor's website directly if I did happen to see an ad I was interested in (which was very seldom, to begin with). 

If I still were involved with administering a FB page, I would have second thoughts about the benefits of paying money to promote the page or posts from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(general reply .. not to you specifically moirakathleen)

I think we've driven to the bottom of the issue here. It comes down to a company (FB, Google, Linden Lab, etc.) doing everything they can these days to monetize our use of their resources. They make it attractive to come visit and use, then look for quiet non-obtrusive ways to make money from us.

But my belief is that we as a common whole are beginning to reach that point of ... well it's a bit strong but ... Digital Revolution. Many of us are starting to speak loudly of ways to avoid, thwart or just plain block all the advertising that assails us daily. Thankfully the courts are generally protecting our right to do exactly that.

Companies like FB are rather forceful .. dare I say aggressive .. in the way they collect and use our information. They've always been that way. (Sort of like the loud guy at the bar that isn't drunk but still can be heard by everyone in the place.) Others like Google seem less pushy and more understanding of the desire to keep some things private. But they still have an amazing reach into our private stuffs.

And then .. Windows 10. *sigh* 'Nuff said.

What can we do? Just keep commenting, posting, resisting and discussing until the pendulum swings the other way and companies start to realize they may have gone too far .. and start pulling back more toward personal privacy over "bottom line numbers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:


And yup, I had a feeling there would be a way found to circumvent (go around) the Privacy Laws. Especially for a company that pumps as much into the local economy as FaceBook.

yes pretty much. either consent or gtfo
 
+
 
is the conflict between property rights and human rights in democractic systems
 
the basic tenet of democracy is that by default everything is legal until it isnt (by legislation). Meaning that we can do whatever we want unless is explictly banned by legislation
 
unlike the basic tenet of totalitarianism where everything is illegal until it isnt (by legislation)
 
illegal meaning that by default all rights are reserved to the State and the citizens cant do stuff without obtaining a license/permit/royal warrant, etc.  And then what they can do legally is highly prescripted in the permit/warrant/etc
 
in practice modern societies fall somewhere between these two. Highly prescripted in some areas, less so in others
 
+
 
SL is a good example of explaining the first. A property owner (parcel /sim) can exclude anyone from their property for any reason or no reason at all
 
then there are human rights conditions super-imposed on this. Like no hate inciting, no minors sex, no harassment, no gambling, etc
 
things like tracking and recording who is on your parcel, where they go, what they do, who they interact with, and what they say in open convo, are not illegal
 
whats illegal in SL is sharing with others what has been tracked and recorded about the who, without their consent
 
in the RL, western democracies have the same approach pretty much, to what property owners can and cant do on and with their own property. Altho in most, further restrictions than in SL apply. Like for example racial and gender discrimination is illegal on RL private property in most cases also
 
+
 
however, and this the main thing. The right of the property owner to exclude others from their property remains in the RL. That the property owner can exclude anyone for no reason at all, by default. Meaning that a reason only need be given, in specific situations
 
For example: trepass law which apply to private shops/malls which while private-owned invite the public to enter by general invitation. Trespassing a person from this situation requires a reason. Trespassing a person from a private property (like your home) requires no reason at all
 
+
 
and this the issue. How far do legislatures go in curtailing the rights of property owners
 
every legislature in RL democracies which also practice capitalism are pretty loathe to curtail property rights unless the curtailment is aimed at a pretty specific human rights violation. Violation of minors, racial and gender discrimination, etc
  
the reason they are loathe is that curtailment of property rights strikes at the heart of capitalism
 
that when a property owner is fully proscribed in what they can and cant do (like totalitarian) on/with the property then the property is in practice worthless as a object of value
 
the value is now in the license/permit/royal warrant which prescripts what can and cannot be done on the property. A license/permit/warrant which is given and can be taken away by the State
Link to comment
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:
 
[snip] ..
and this the issue. How far do legislatures go in curtailing the rights of property owners
.. [snip]

THIS^^ ... is the real issue in SL as well.

I do enjoy reading your posts as you do have the knack of looking right at the core issue. As you've pointed out, it's becoming an issue in Democratic societies and in our virtualized ones as well.

Otherwise idle political bodies go on working even when there's nothing to do. So they make up stuff to do. Before long we've got laws and regulations that had no purpose other than to fill some polititian's agenda or meet his backer's needs. Onward into the future and our laws start looking more totalitarian and less democratic.

The problem with Democracy is .. no one bothered to design an off-switch or a limiter. Perhaps because no one believed Democracy as a political system was going to last this long? Or maybe they just figured "reasonable people" would realize when it was time to stop. They just didn't fully count on the unreasonable nature of human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:
 
the value is now in the license/permit/royal warrant which prescripts what can and cannot be done on the property. A license/permit/warrant which is given and can be taken away by the State

Althogh your argments are almost completely flawed by assuming that a few islands in the southern hemisphere can act as an example for civilised society as a whole (still ignoring the hordes of megalomaniac semi-autocracies) as I keep pointing out, nobody has any rights, merely privileges granted them temporarily by the powerful.

Hence the permitted rise of female emancipation.

Alec - illuminating reality to the rose-tinted spectacle wearers

Link to comment
Share on other sites


AlecDeBoeuil wrote:


irihapeti wrote:
 
the value is now in the license/permit/royal warrant which prescripts what can and cannot be done on the property. A license/permit/warrant which is given and can be taken away by the State

Althogh your argments are almost completely flawed by assuming that a few islands in the southern hemisphere can act as an example for civilised society as a whole (still ignoring the hordes of megalomaniac semi-autocracies) as I keep pointing out, nobody has any rights, merely privileges granted them temporarily by the powerful.

Hence the permitted rise of female emancipation.

Alec - illuminating reality to the rose-tinted spectacle wearers

i recognise that your reality is that after a public school education, Cambridge even. and a self-proclaimed glittering career as a investment advisor, that you now attained the position of blackboard monitor of the SL GD forum
 
unlike some of your once fellow students who are now sitting in the House of Lords and parked up on the boards of multi-zillion dollar banks and corporates, and sailing their yachts in the Aegean on their summer hols and skiing in Aspen on their winter hols
 
so can understand that powerful forces (like your once fellow students and their meglomaniac peers in similar institutions round the world) must of conspired to thwart you over your lifetime, to explain your now status
 
bc how can it be otherwise
Link to comment
Share on other sites


irihapeti wrote:


AlecDeBoeuil wrote:


irihapeti wrote:
 
the value is now in the license/permit/royal warrant which prescripts what can and cannot be done on the property. A license/permit/warrant which is given and can be taken away by the State

Althogh your argments are almost completely flawed by assuming that a few islands in the southern hemisphere can act as an example for civilised society as a whole (still ignoring the hordes of megalomaniac semi-autocracies) as I keep pointing out, nobody has any rights, merely privileges granted them temporarily by the powerful.

Hence the permitted rise of female emancipation.

Alec - illuminating reality to the rose-tinted spectacle wearers

i recognise that your reality is that after a public school education, Cambridge even. and a self-proclaimed glittering career as a investment advisor, that you now attained the position of blackboard monitor of the SL GD forum
 
unlike some of your once fellow students who are now sitting in the House of Lords and parked up on the boards of multi-zillion dollar banks and corporates, and sailing their yachts in the Aegean on their summer hols and skiing in Aspen on their winter hols
 
so can understand that powerful forces (like your once fellow students and their meglomaniac peers in similar institutions round the world) must of conspired to thwart you over your lifetime, to explain your now status
 
bc how can it be otherwise

Oh, you have some quaint ideas about me. A welsh grammar school hardly qualifies as a "Public School" (with capital letters) and my investment advice was always offered in an amateur fashion (it was always correct though). My professional career involved getting things done, especially those things that others didn't believe could be done, hoped were impossible, or didn't want to dirty their hands by doing themselves.

My erstwhile colleagues are generally, like me, doing exactly what they want to, as they, like me, have endured and manipulated the capitalist society (and exploited all those Marxian tools of production) so that they have optimised the tradeoff of effort and return, and while none of them would be interested in any political commitment they generally now work hardest at ensuring that family marriages, christenings, and funerals are scheduled so that they do not conflict with major sporting occasions around the world, whether they attend them or merely remain on a couch in front of a TV close enough to a fridge that the beer doesn't get warm before consumption..

In between such occasions, I personally enjoy, inter alia, taunting Americans who mistakenly believe they have some sort of power over me, and reminding ESLers that you can mean what you say, but it is much more difficult to say what you mean. I can also spell megalomaniac correctly.

Alec - filling in the longueurs between the public humiliation of Antipodeans (60 all out!) with a bit of performance art

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2741 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...