Here are the key concepts of a great white paper.
What is the point of replacing Facebook and Google with the same things, just with another “owner”?
For-profit corporations funding the only source of information for millions of people that they still don’t control? What could possibly go wrong?
Two months ago I signalled that little or no regulation may leave a powerful company free to not only lock up emerging markets in Asia, but also to control, in the same areas, new payment systems or distribution of information over mobile phones. That was two months ago.
The popular dating app Tinder was caught charging its users as much as three times more for the same service, depending on the ages of those users. What does this mean?
“Data used to be much simpler”. Too simple, probably. Starting this year, we have one more reason to deploy personal clouds as soon as possible: peak data governance.
Don’t worry, I am not out of my mind. I still say we should all leave Facebook now. I still promote a way to do it that is jus a tiny bit more realistic and feasible in the short term than almost everything I’ve seen around so far. Still, the reasons and the way teens are abandoning Facebook are bad. Or, as a minimum, misreported.
There is a lot of talking these days about Facebook getting data about people who are not on Facebook, but not enough on WHO gives Facebook those data.
Frederic Filloux argues that Facebook’ future is “bright and planetary” because:
- It’s there, in one article. In “Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress: the key moments”, Zuckerberg is quoted as answering: every single time you go to share something on Facebook, whether it's a photo in Facebook, or a message, every single time, there's a control right there about who you're going to be sharing it with ... and you can change that and control that in line. The issue is right in the “there’s a control right there” part: what other humans can or cannot see about you inside Facebook does not matter at all.