I feel like we need to start differentiating between "public" personal information and more sensitive personal information (like social security numbers or other government ID numbers). The breach lists this info:
Name
Email
Location
Gender
Phone number
User ID
So basically, everything I used to be able to get in a phone book. Honestly, at this point all of that information should just be considered public, because it obviously is.
If anything I think people are grappling with the fact that the Internet just makes data scraping and processing possible on a scale previously unimaginable, and that's really what people have an issue with, but I don't think there's a great answer to that. I mean, it's one thing to say the front of my house is public info because anyone can come by and take a picture, but it sure feels different when a high resolution photo (or heck, video feed) can be posted online that is instantly available to billions of people.
> everything I used to be able to get in a phone book
Fair, although you could opt out of the phone book. (And I don't think they had location/address, though it's been so long now that I can't remember for sure.)
> I think people are grappling with the fact that the Internet just makes data scraping and processing possible on a scale previously unimaginable
This is it right here. The scale and ease of access are terrifying. It's true that in the olden days, someone could follow me around and write down everywhere I went, everyone I talked to, what stores I went to, my hobbies, and so on. But someone would actually have to do that, and they would have to single me out, and even then the information they collected would be in a notebook, not distributed to virtually every human on the planet.
Now we are all being followed, all the time, and all of that information is available to anyone with almost no cost or effort. This is a sea change, and personally I find it horrifying. There are very, very few people I would trust with that much information. I definitely don't trust the whole world with it.
It was earlier - the 1984 movie (Terminator) had the scene where he rips out the page from the phone book, looking for the Sarah Connors listed there. :)
I believe the LGR channel has shown some DOS programs from before 1990 that had the entire catalogue of the US phonebook available in a neat DOS UI, where you just choose a location/state (or non at all) then enter a letter and it would filter every entry on the chosen filter...
The ones in Australia where one way - you could search for a name and it would give you a phone and address... but if you a programmer, you could read the database directly, so search on a phone number and get back the address and name, or search an address and get back name and phone number.
There were a few services in the early 2000s doing this, they were called Reverse Grey Pages
I think we actually had that, bought on a whim by my Dad at a computer show in the 90's. We had some fun looking up how many people with certain first/last names were in the US, but didn't have much other use for it.
And funnily enough, family members of mine have started multiple businesses named A-1 something. :)
I don't know, but I'm also not entirely sure how phone books sorted back in the day (they predate ASCII by quite a bit), or if it was even consistent across locales (probably, at least before the baby bells), so for all I know A- sorted before A+, and nobody wants to be just A-.
I Denmark phone books had postal address. Think this goes for many contries i think. You could even call directory inquiry and ask for someone's address and they would give it to you.
> Fair, although you could opt out of the phone book. (And I don't think they had location/address, though it's been so long now that I can't remember for sure.)
you can opt out of Facebook too... and Irish phone books had addresses...
Facebook builds profiles about millions of people who have never had a Facebook account. For example, people who happened to be in the background of a photograph taken by a stranger. Another example: people who installed an app on their phone without knowing that it included a Facebook SDK that was tracking them.
This is nothing new. It's been discussed in public, and even before the U.S. congress.
Personally, I'd love to opt out of Facebook. But I can't. Because I can't log in to my Facebook account, and Facebook ignores my requests for access. I even did the "send in a picture of your government ID" route, and nothing happened. So please inform me how I can opt out of Facebook's data gathering.
It's not just Facebook. Your phone is tattling on you 24/7. ALPRs are recording where you drive. Browser fingerprinting is creating a profile on you even if you block ads and trackers. Short of never using a computer, there is no opt out anymore.
That's a little different thought and I think you know it.
There's a difference between information that government and big tech is scraping and storing, vs information that is publicly available to literally any random person online to scrape.
Both are problems, but those are different discussions and we started with talking about the issue of truly publicly available information. I think that's an interesting topic that merits its own discussion without falling into the surveillance discussion once again.
A little different, yes, but what I'm saying is that it's not substantially different. Once data is collected, it won't be uncollected, and all it takes is one hack to permanently turn a private database into a public one. And the data that's being collected in these private databases is often justified on the grounds that it's not private information--i.e., if you're outside, you have no expectation of privacy. So in that sense it is "truly public" information. But what I'm saying is that the meaning of public/private has fundamentally changed because of the kind of differences of scale we're talking about here. In other words, there was a degree of implicit privacy afforded by the level of effort required to catalog and search "public" data. Whether that data comes from public or private databases is, I think, not particularly relevant.
Sure, yes, I don't disagree with what your saying. It's just that corporate surveillance is like the favourite topic on HN right now. Almost every topic gets shifted to being yet another debate about corporate surveillance.
There is an interesting discussion to be had about what it means for information to be public, since public information is also now _searchable_ information, which never used to be the case. What are the implications for that when it comes to laws about what constitutes "public" information, and social norms on what we share publicly.
But once again instead of discussing that conversation, we're dragged back into the corporate and government surveillance, yet again.
The former can become the latter pretty easily though and without any consent through both illegal (hacking) and legal (company acquisition) ways. Corporate surveillance very much is a part of the problem and you can't talk about one without talking about the other.
What is weird to me are so many of the responses to my comment are along the lines of "But the real danger now is that all of this data can be correlated with other sources of info, and it's all instantly searchable." It's weird to me because that's the point I was trying to make in my last paragraph, to explain that that really has nothing to do with Facebook. The "hackers" aren't even claiming there was a breach, just information they screen scraped. The ability to amass giant databases of information and make it available to the world to search is something fundamentally inherent to the Internet.
Sure, but you weren't in the white pages if you weren't already paying for a phone. At that point the question of whether you're getting a discount for agreeing to be in the book, or paying not to be in the book is just an arbitrary distinction.
Home addresses were absolutely shown in Bell Telephone White Pages phone books delivered to just about every domicile in the USA each year; you could not opt out of receiving the White and Yellow pages, though for a fee you could be “unlisted” and not appear in them.
This info had a logical purpose also. Phone books without location and address would be mostly useless because lots of people share the same name.
To find the phone number of a friend having just "John Smith, USA" would be impossible (or would annoy thousands of people and require months of calls).
They did have one's address in the phone book. Now, you had to have a decent city map, and some sense of the city numbering scheme to know where that address was.
Most city maps I used would have a street index and a grid coordinate system overlaid on the map so you would only search within a square like "D5" for example.
In the past "public" did not mean a single, all-encompassing global village of information that anyone on earth with a computer could get access to. People then operated within local shells of information, extending outward from the neighborhood block to the city to the country and maybe finally to the world.
What time you walk your dog each day would be neighborhood level public info. Phone numbers would be city level. For greater reach than that you usually had to put the info out there yourself or be someone of media prominence.
Nowadays the time you walk your dog is out on the internet because it was leaked from some Amazon S3 bucket collecting pings from your dog's smart collar. And what more it's been joined with your name, phone number, and other personal info to create an automated profile of you by interested groups.
That's a whole different ball game, and not one that many people expect despite living their lives (in their minds) the same way as before.
This isn't true. The phonebook we had had only Name, Phone number and very broad location. Also those days, phone number was just that - a phone number. Nowadays it's a unique identifier for lots and lots of things including government stuff. Some government stuff even uses it for authentication/authorization.
Also I guess user ID means it gives access to their fb profile page I guess? From there one can scrape pics etc (public ones).
> So basically, everything I used to be able to get in a phone book. Honestly, at this point all of that information should just be considered public, because it obviously is.
With a phonebook (at least back in the day), you didn't risk having your account exposed and sold for a few dollars. Nor did that risk someone getting access to thousands, if not more, bank accounts or whatever through automation. In addition, a phonebook is easy to opt out of making things public. Facebook gives you the illusion that you can opt out of this data being public.
> Facebook gives you the illusion that you can opt of this data being public.
What makes you think that that isn't the case here? It sounds like they just scraped all the public profiles they could find. It's not a database "leak" or something like that.
Right, that's what I mean with "Facebook gives you the illusion that you can opt out of this data being public".
I recall when I still had Facebook, many people would randomly add you and pretend to be random people, sometimes famous, sometimes they "just want to be friends". I know most people have some settings along the lines of "no one except friends can see all this data". This is an issue, because people will add these "friends" and forget about these permissions. These "friends" can easily be attackers like these that suddenly have access to all your data. Hence the "illusion".
With a phonebook on the other hand, when you opt out, you've opted out.
Prior to me becoming more privacy conscious I had 700+ "friends", of which less than 250 I actually ever met or was acquainted with. I recall one very specific interaction with one of those random requests of some person adding me and claiming to be Demi Lovato (I'd no idea who that was at the time) with their name spelled really oddly (I can't remember exactly, but they were trying to spell Demi Lovato but with random word or characters in between to make it look mildly like Demi's name, but not really). This interaction was somewhat of a wake-up call and that's when I realised I shouldn't be accepting random requests.
Afterwards my friend's list hovered around 150. These were family, close friends, less close friends, and acquaintances. I also had hundreds on my friend requests lists by the time I deleted my FB around 2015.
Social engineering did not begin with computers, that's just when we put a fancy name on it. Personal information has been used to impersonate people in person or over the phone for a very long time.
I understand, but social engineering 1.5 billion names in a spreadsheet that can be automated is lots easier than social engineering 1.5 billion people in a phone book with no real automation available.
But again, the big difference here is that Facebook gives you the illusion that your data is private. With a phone book, when you opt out, you're opted out.
"So basically everything I used to be able to get in a phone book."
Assuming you had phone books from every city/region in every country. Thats a lot of phone books so you must have had a large warehouse to store them all. Then there is the fact that phone books did not list number for every individual. Multiple persons routinely shared the same number.
The comparison sounds apt in theory but in practice it isn't. Try looking these Facebook users up in the phone books of their respective locales, via the telcos' online phone books or directory assistance. Then, using what you find, tell me their email address, gender and Facebook user ID.
Good luck.
The problem with this argument, "all email addresses are public", which I see regularly on HN, is that information does not become "public" and lose its "private" designation if it is published without consent or lawful purpose. If someone steals secrets and publishes them, they are still secrets.
Whether this information from Facebook is truly "private" I cannot say but I do think it is possible to have email addresses that are not made public.
The recent NSO iMessage story was interesting because the exploit seemed to rely on NSO getting lists of mobile phone numbers for the targets. Not email addresses. Yet iMessage will work without a phone number, with no SIM inserted. Perhaps the targets chose to use phone numbers for iMessage, not email addresses.
Consider what happens if someone creates a Gmail address but never uses it to send mail, and never shares the address with anyone, except Facebook. If this person does not make their Facebook profile public, how is this address public information. Google does not publish a list of every Gmail address. According to the logic of the parent comment, they might just as well. Email addresses are "public", right. Because some HN commenters think they are.
What happened when someone scraped Apple's servers to obtain the email addresses of Apple iPad users. Did federal prosecutors think the information was "public" or "private". The media called the incident "theft of e-mail addresses".^1
> If anything I think people are grappling with the fact that the Internet just makes data scraping and processing possible on a scale previously unimaginable, and that's really what people have an issue with, but I don't think there's a great answer to that. I mean, it's one thing to say the front of my house is public info because anyone can come by and take a picture, but it sure feels different when a high resolution photo (or heck, video feed) can be posted online that is instantly available to billions of people.
From your example, it's another thing to have a high resolution photo or video feed of everyone's houses and to, say, send them ads for painting services if the trim looks out of shape.
I think the important thing to get in the public consciousness is that scale alone is sufficient to make information processing fundamentally different than a human interacting with a single data point. Looking up one person in the phone book and calling them or sending them a letter is different than scanning the entire book, robocalling everyone in it, and sending junk mail to all of them. The fact that the former is accepted and that the later is merely the former repeated a million times does not make the latter permissible. The former was accepted because the way the world worked meant that it was simply intractable - an economic nonstarter, a physical and logical impossibility, humanly infeasible - to abuse it into spamming a million people.
For another example, license plates are public, required to be visible on your vehicle on public roads. Prior to license plate scanning technology, a cop could have tailed a suspect and radioed their vehicle description and license plate to have other detectives and officers disperse to intersections and track a vehicle through a city, and depending on the nature of the problem, they could spend a few hundred dollars to dispatch a helicopter to chase it across the freeway. They could conceivably tail a non-suspect, but that wouldn't make any sense, they were constrained by limited resources to only use this ability for a select few vehicles. That was how the world worked. Later, automated license plate readers were developed. With cameras deployed across every intersection in a city, it would be feasible to track all motions of every vehicle at all times; it would likely be cheaper and easier to do so than one year's expenses of deploying personnel to do so manually.
That information should be considered public, because it obviously is, but what a person is allowed to do with public information should not be limited only by what they're able to do with it.
> more sensitive personal information (like social security numbers or other government ID numbers)
I tend to think that there should be a publicly accessible, unique, and more or less immutable ID number for every citizen or resident. This ID would have pointers to our name, birth date and a few other identifiers that shouldn't really be considered secret.
My concern is that the absence of such a unique ID leads to a mess of overlapping systems in which only large organizations with the resources to track everyone will be able to uniquely identify people. So we'll have a degree of anonymity from random other individuals, not not from banks, tech corporations or the government. Computing power is becoming too cheap and ubiquitous to effectively hide information that isn't explicitly confidential. That is, as a society we need to adjust to a paradigm in which it is more expensive to keep information confidential than to allow it to be public. Especially keeping information private from those with deep pockets.
And why exactly would everyone being easier to track be helpful to the actual people themselves? I don't want Facebook to have that information. I'm even less interested in some random small business having it.
Agree on importance of correlating records across heterogenous systems.
AND:
All PII field level data must be encrypted at rest.
UUIDs unlock both the record linking and privacy achievements.
The book Translucent Databases shows how. Hide sensitive data with salt + hash, just like with proper password files. Use UUIDs as opaque pointers for linking.
> If anything I think people are grappling with the fact that the Internet just makes data scraping and processing possible on a scale previously unimaginable,
Agreed.
I remember way back when FB first launched the "feed". Folks on Slashdot (yes, that long ago) had great outcry about how much of a violation of privacy it was. I countered that all it was doing was collating all the posts that people were making on their "walls". Nothing new was necessarily being exposed.
People still didn't like it. Someone argued that the extra steps necessary to visit each "friends" wall was a valuable impediment. Obviously, that's a weak position to take, but it reinforces your point: data scraping is easier than anyone seems to be willing to acknowledge. Anything you write in any "semi-public" space should simply be considered entirely public.
My neighbour who is 87 years old has all the phone books from tbe Lage 50s-mid 60s.
I checked my grandfather and it listed bis adress, phone and occupation.
It's never about one item of information released: it's about the aggregation and linking potential. Name/location/phone together form a pretty decent unique identifier. FB obviously gives you friends, interests, hangouts, and most importantly, photographs; none of which you had before.
Ater aggregating with other databases is when the harm comes.
I think that information increased in sensitivity because technology that gives us instant access to it also allows it to be exploited in different new ways. Like there's no machine that can take a paper phonebook and call everyone in it with customized spam messages, but you can trivially do that with a CSV file and 20 lines of python.
These large scale breaches harm everyone's privacy (anonymity). Even people who are not included. Because with enough data you can deanon people, eg thru process of elimination.
Absolutely. Most engineers who work with sensitive data already know that there are tiers of data sensitivity (Public, Personal, Private), and that info like SSN and CCN are more private than, say, gender or marital status.
>I feel like we need to start differentiating between "public" personal information and more sensitive personal information (like social security numbers or other government ID numbers).
The flipside of this is that we need to make it such that simply knowing someone's Name, Address, DOB, and SSN is not adequate to fraudulently assume their financial identity and incur debts in their name.
> So basically, everything I used to be able to get in a phone book.
Even if people didn't have unlisted numbers, phone books would allow listing only last name and first initial of one person in the household, without any location data beyond the phone book service area (you could provide more if you wanted to be found), and didn’t include gender.
also, older FB accounts (and maybe even some recently created ones?) could easily use handles instead of real names or even real initials. this leak can therefore establish or confirm a mapping between someone's online and offline identities, which wasn't a risk associated with phone book listings.
> and more sensitive personal information (like social security numbers)
Well I consider SSNs public knowledge at this stage. You can reliably dox anyone in the US now and find out their SSNs. Also: I used to have a sticker on my laptop that had my SSN on it, and brought it to conferences, as a PR stunt for my consultancy.
With a land line phone number from a phonebook, criminals can’t do much. With a smartphone number they can hack phones, potentially steal bank accounts, track their location and on and on.
As an example, my parents have been bombarded with calls from a scammer who it seems only has their phone number and email address, but that’s enough to give away their full names and the name of the ISP, so the scammer is using it to call and pretend to be the ISP support trying to trick them into giving up 2FA codes from password reset attempts they do at the same time while calling that phone. You don’t need much info to go a long way!
Wait until HN readers find out what these faceless companies that appear around election time and mail me junk are able to gleam from public voting registration data.
> So basically, everything I used to be able to get in a phone book. Honestly, at this point all of that information should just be considered public, because it obviously is.
I am honestly shocked at your proposal.
In a real paper book you had a choice not to get your number published.
Have you put any thought about people who are maybe running from abusive spouse or any other people who have reason not to have their location data to be broadcasted to entire world?
Yes. SSNs are distributed by year in blocks that are granted to hospitals. If you know a person's year and place of birth you can brute force them. For example if you wanted to generate plausible identities you could just use a common Jewish last name and get the SSN block from a major hospital in NYC for a high birth year. Say, 1955. The odds that you will be able to guess the SSN for Abraham Goldstein born in Manhattan in 1955 are going to be pretty good, especially if you have some oracle that will let you guess several times.
10,000 is probably going to be the largest number of guesses needed, and if you have prior knowledge, like a distributed set of ssns from the same year and location, you can reduce the practical effective number of guesses to a few dozen.
The freely available databases of pii in the wild can be used to infer anything missing from releases like this, and that stuff can be used to inform probabilistic password guesses, and so on. It's only a matter of time before deep learning models make most common password based security measures completely transparent and obsolete.
I know everyone on HN loves to hate on Facebook, but the fact that HN's servers are getting crushed when FB is down perhaps shows a revealed preference.
Or it could be as simple as everyone wants to discuss one of the biggest tech companies suffering such a massive outage, combined with the aforementioned FB-haters basking in this moment.
LOL. I haven't come across you before today (so, not sure if this is a joke), but for the past few hours every social network has more active users than Facebook.
It could be more than that. Vodafone broadband Internet (used to be UPC) is down in all of Czech Republic since about an hour. Their website is down (vodafone.cz), their mobile Internet seems slow. Coincidence?
I don't use Facebook, but I'm very curious about why it's down. I'm sure I'm not alone in my curiosity about one of the biggest tech companies in the world.
I think it's mix of signalling respect for the people impacted by this, the people who work there and are just trying to be decent and of course the fan boys.
The first place my mind went to after I read this was "dumb fucks" (Google this with Zuckerberg for context) but as good as the schadenfreude feels it doesn't change the very real and negative impacts from all of this.
Are you suggesting that HN being under a greater load has something to do with people hopping on HN instead of Facebook as they'd normally do? That seems like a reach.
I'm more of a 'shit on Facebook' man myself but I'm not above hate.
I find it hard to find fault with people expressing disgust with how knowingly predatory and exploitative the company's leadership have proven themselves to be.
I was afraid that it meant HN depended on Facebook infrastructure somehow. If the explanation is "Facebook is more popular and people flock to HN when it's down" -- that is a relief. I don't think that is the best explanation, though.
But maybe it's a failure with wider scope than just Facebook's DNS. Or an attack that targeted both FB and HN (and others)? Wild speculation at this point.
I'm not a Facebook user, and I'm a casual HN user. I heard Facebook was down, so I checked HN. I bet that's the source of the problem. If you know about HN and you hear Facebook's down, you check HN to see what people are saying.
Facebook is having a very bad day today, You have this hack announced today, all their sites are apparently down due to a bgp issue they are dealing with, and then the bombshell allegations of them intentionally creating toxicity on their platform to enrich themselves at the expense of society. Zuck's world is slowly collapsing in on him, expect heavy regulation and the beginning of the end of facebook as we know it.
Some might laugh this off as 'oh it's just scraping'. But I remember reading some comments in HN that there are apps that can scan faces and pull personal info including where they live, work etc. So each leak uncovers a person little by little.
This vindicates the stance taken by Signal to not even collect metadata.
Edit: I mean surreptitiously scan the face of a stranger you see in public and the app will tell you about them. Don't know names of the apps.
I always want to know what a service like that has found, but I'm also pretty unwilling to upload an image of me to it, given that there's not a lot of public images of me out there that I'm aware of. Then again, maybe if I did check I'd see a bunch of images where I was tagged by other people and that would disabuse me of the notion that images of me online are rare at all...
I worked at WhatsApp until 2019; I don't remember any disaster plans where taking everything down was an option (although I'm sure they exist), but dropping BGP sessions is probably not the best way to do it, because it's hard to reverse and hard to inspect the system without BGP.
Over in WA land, we'd probably just kill all the frontend servers if needed. For all of FB infrastructure, killing all the loadbalancers would probably work, and also the outgoing proxy hosts, as appropriate. No need to mess with DNS or BGP.
I agree that it's highly unlikely to be a deliberate action, but your listed mitigations would only help against security issues that impact the web services.
It could be the only way to go in the highly unlikely scenario that attackers are able to compromise the management APIs of various infrastructure devices like routers, baremetal servers etc.
These APIs are usually on airgapped networks though, which makes this extremely unlikely
And some wonder why I'm not letting myself forced into dual authentication providing them with real phone number. Actually I am very reluctant to log into Facebook at all, twice a year perhaps seeing old friends making an attempt to communicate with me, then only from private browsing, perhaps VPN too. I do not trust them with any shred of additional info on me to that they do not have already from earlier.
I miss a lot of links sent to me pointing to facebook post or something, no, actually I do not miss a little thing, I rather do not care about cute animals or strange people or thoughts, it is invaluable in 99,999% of the cases, for the rest I can take the loss.
I'm glad I never gave FB my real phone number or birthday. Nobody should. I predicted this would happen some day. It's always just a matter of probability and time.
Do you have any friends that might have used any FB app? If so, chances are high they uploaded their contact list and FB has your name and phone number.
And this is exactly why this is a problem. I have never consented to facebook having my information. I have never had an account linked to anything real about me. I had one in 2004 or so to learn about college parties. I used a pseudonym and deleted in once I graduated.
But I guarantee they still have my information because people I know use their app.
I mean, I usually just tell friends to call me on FB messenger (or WeChat) rather than giving them one of my 10+ phone numbers, so FB probably wouldn't have gotten it that way. I'm not on very many people's phone contact lists. The few that do have a virtual number that I can just change.
I have a fake birthday I use consistently across most of the internet.
I don't have a consistent "real" phone number -- I change it periodically. I then have virtual numbers that redirect to those, which I change from time to time as well.
Never gave mine either, but that’s the strength of FB: you don’t even need to have an account. They know everything about you because your friends, family and colleagues gave them that information.
IANAL but is it legal to just use a fake ID with photoshopped numbers, considering there is no legal or financial damage done in doing so in the FB case? You aren't causing someone to serve alcohol to minors, you aren't giving it to the government, you're just telling a social media giant that they have no right to that information.
and IANAL but it seems that possession of a fake ID of itself isn't illegal and I don't think "using Facebook" falls under the intent to defraud, i.e. "in order to cause loss or damage to a legal, financial, or property right".
> "in order to cause loss or damage to a legal, financial, or property right".
It would be a stretch, but perhaps an imaginative prosecutor could claim that the user is trying to diminish Facebook's finances/property by generating web responses (using CPU time and electricity) which it otherwise wouldn't.
That's discounting all the expansive interpretations of the CFAA which would deem any breach of Facebook's terms of service to be an act of illegal hacking, not to mention an interpretation of copyright law that asserted that the user was receiving unlicensed copies of Facebook's intellectual property (e.g. their HTML).
IANAL but is it legal to just use a fake ID with photoshopped numbers, considering there is no legal or financial damage done in doing so in the FB case? You aren't causing someone to serve alcohol to minors, you aren't giving it to the government, you're just telling a social media giant that they have no right to that information.
What a broken product. There isn’t 1.5B users with public profiles in FB, so whatever methods these guys used clearly went beyond regular data scrapping.
SearchPeopleFree<dot>com pretty much has a ton on a good majority of people. Get their phone number and if you want learn a lot about them.
So it just compiles public information. No opinion whether it's a good or bad thing here from me just pointing it out.
Expected in all honesty, data these days is a currency to be bartered. I despise facebooks and everything it stands for, I wish people would take themselves more seriously. This need to fill a void with nonsense, is just simply unbecoming. So, suffer the consequences.
Best thing everyone who has account in any of FB related properties is to change your password soon as it's back. Then don't use the old password anywhere, if you do, change those too.
I suspect today's outage (now resolved) was planned in some capacity in order to address what's in TFA here or the story regarding the recent whistleblower.
I honestly ask myself how the f Zuck has the guts and ego to still talk about a "metaverse" with a company and product so wrong, so poisonous and evil to humanity. I really can't wait to see him in jail already.
I'm not a big fan of Facebook but the hatred toward that company here is getting out of hand. You want to see Zuck in jail for what crime exactly? How is Twitter, Youtube, TikTok or Reddit any better than Facebook when it comes to being "poisonous" or "evil"? Youtube was literally financing terrorist groups with ad money 10 years ago. Twitter gives a platform to anti-Semites and the Taliban.
FB is inherently evil and must be stopped at all costs.
And your last part about giving those two groups a platform: so fucking what? Those groups are much more prestigious than our 'leaders'.
https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1445100884740935686