Apple Co-Founder Deletes His Facebook Page

Elon Musk isn't the only Silicon Valley luminary to delete Facebook pages (or rather, the pages belonging to Tesla and SpaceX) in response to the widening scandal over how Facebook stores, shares,  leverages and sells its users' personal data: on Sunday, Woz also deactivated his account saying the social network had brought him "more negatives than positives."

"I am in the process of leaving Facebook. It's brought me more negatives than positives. Apple has more secure ways to share things about yourself. I can still deal with old school email and text messages."

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak explained his decision in an email to USA Today, saying Facebook makes a lot of advertising money from personal information voluntarily shared with the company.

Woz

Woz said he'd rather pay for Facebook - adding that Apple "makes money off of good products, not off of you. As they say, with Facebook, you're the product."

What is far more fascinating to us is that it took years for brilliant people such as Wozniak to grasp what was patently obvious to most others, even if those "others" are what the dormant, quiet and largely daft majority, would call "conspiracy theorists."

Woz said that, while leaving Facebook was difficult, he was astounded by revelations about the comprehensiveness of Facebook's data harvesting.

In an email to USA TODAY, Wozniak said he was taken aback by the extent of Facebook's data collection when he changed and deleted some of his information before deactivating his account.

"I was surprised to see how many categories for ads and how many advertisers I had to get rid of, one at a time. I did not feel that this is what people want done to them," he said. "Ads and spam are bad things these days and there are no controls over them. Or transparency."

Still, breaking up with Facebook isn't easy. Wozniak chose not to delete his Facebook account. He didn't mind bidding farewell to his 5,000 Facebook friends, many of whom he says he doesn't know. But he didn't want to give up his "stevewoz" screen name.

"I don’t want someone else grabbing it, even another Steve Wozniak," he said.

Of course, a paid product doesn't necessarily mean a company won't collect user data and offer to manipulate it on behalf of advertisers, as one Twitter user pointed out...

Woz's repudiation of Zuckerberg and company follows Apple CEO Tim Cook's unexpected criticism of his Silicon Valley peer during an interview with Recode. When asked what he would do if he were in Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's position, Cook replied that he would never be in such a situation.

He added that Apple strenuously reviews apps available in its app store to make sure they respect user privacy.

"We don't subscribe to the view that you have to let everybody in that wants to, or if you don't, you don't believe in free speech," said Cook. "We don't believe that."

Zuckerberg responded to Cook during an interview with Vox, saying he found the Apple CEO's argument to be "extremely glib."

"If you want to build a service which is not just serving rich people, then you need to have something that people can afford," said Zuckerberg.”

Zuckerberg is set to appear before Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday. Meanwhile, his company is facing lawsuits from users and shareholders, along with a potentially devastating FTC investigation and increasing scrutiny in the UK and Brussels.

Comments

FireBrander AnonymousCitizen Mon, 04/09/2018 - 09:12 Permalink

...it took years for brilliant people such as Wozniak...

It did not take years, time played no roll in this...one fact did this...the fact that FaceBook played a part in helping Trump win...even if it was just .0001% helpful to Trump, that's way too much for these folks.

PS> Facebook helping Trump is just the cover story...the real story is that Facebook played a much bigger role in hurting Hillary than it did in helping Trump..that is why the rats are abandoning ship...Even with the COO of Facebook publicly in the Hillary Camp, and most likely a large percentage of the Facebook employees, Trump had 2.5x more "likes" than Hillary and the engagement numbers were also much higher for Trump...FaceBook helped people to "get to know" Hillary; and they didn't "like" her...ouch!

In reply to by AnonymousCitizen

Bay of Pigs FireBrander Mon, 04/09/2018 - 09:36 Permalink

No way. I’m on Facebook and well over 90% of all posts and views were all slanted firmly into the HRC camp. I know this because I was posting the Podesta Wikileaks emails and was roundly criticized for daring to say anything about the criminal activity of HRC and all her minions. I was mocked and laughed at for saying Trump might win. I based that from seeing the 25-30K rallies he had everywhere while Cankles was trying to fill high school gyms. And no, I didn’t vote for Trump. 

There was, and still is, very little support for President Trump on Facebook. It is a libtard cesspool. Many of my friends think ZH is fake news because of his win. They watch CNN and read the HuffPo. They believe the Russians swayed the election and that Mueller will bring them justice and take Trump down.

In reply to by FireBrander

FireBrander Bay of Pigs Mon, 04/09/2018 - 09:58 Permalink

So, you socialize in a pit of leftist cultists and surmise from that, that facebook is 90% pro Hillary..I see why you're "friends" don't like, or listen, to you...

2.2 Billion Facebook "Users"
9.8 Million likes for Hillary.
23.1 Million likes for Trump

Facebook is 90% pro Hillary and yet only .0045% (9.8M/2.2B) of Facebook users hit Hillary's "like" button.

From what I see, 99% of Facebook "users" don't really give a shit about either of these candidates...

In reply to by Bay of Pigs

FireBrander Bay of Pigs Mon, 04/09/2018 - 10:14 Permalink

The Russians did play a major role in this election...One of the top reasons I voted for Trump is because I (and most Trump voters I'm sure) didn't want a war with Russia...a War Hillary was just dying to start and Russia promised (and still does) to use nukes if necessary if that war was initiated by the USA.

..and then those "evil idiots" Assad and Putin "gas some folks"; spitting out the well cooked victory they were savoring by pulling the USA back into the war to save the last of the "Freedom Fighters" trying to remove Assad..do I need a sarc tag?

In reply to by Bay of Pigs

Endgame Napoleon DisorderlyConduct Mon, 04/09/2018 - 12:42 Permalink

The Cold War has been over for 30 years, so no, Russia has not been a bigly priority of voters for decades and is not the reason for the Trump victory, not that Trump voters want a war with Russia. We don’t.

The Trump campaign posted way over 5 million ads on FB, testing themes out to see how voters reacted, dwarfing the measly 100,000 ads by a group of young, underemployed Russians who were paid $3 per hour. 

The Trump campaign’s employees used the mobile-tech version of Bush I’s rudimentary TV-age marketing technique. Bush I floated the idea that he hated broccoli via the TV media to see if that made him more likable and relatable and then polled voters. The Trump campaign used FB and other social media to the max, floating all kinds of policy ideas to see where the people stood. 

We sensed that they were doing that on comment lines on pro-Trump sites.

Trump is nothing if not a master marketer, but even so, it was NOT manipulation of any kind that swayed voters, not manipulation by Russians and not campaign tactics.

It was the fact that Trump addressed issues that the corrupt Swampers refuse to do anything about, like stopping mass-scale, welfare-aided immigration and mass-scale offshoring of jobs, that led to the Trump victory.

You might be able to influence a few voters at the margins with ads, but most likely voters who actually show up to vote—certainly the cross-over voters who left a party they had voted for for decades—vote based on issues far more than all of these analysts think.

In reply to by DisorderlyConduct

crazytechnician Bay of Pigs Mon, 04/09/2018 - 10:52 Permalink

Unfortunatley we are surrounded by brainwashed libtard Socialist big government worshipping Statist's. If we don't interract with these people then it would be a very solemn life. I wonder how many of them just pretend to be like this so it does not trigger their friends ? In public they are for Hillary , the EU etc but in the privacy of the ballot box it's like yeah - fuck the EU , fuck Hillary etc.

In reply to by Bay of Pigs

Endgame Napoleon crazytechnician Mon, 04/09/2018 - 13:05 Permalink

If a conservative with enough verve ran for senate in CA, he might get more votes than expected due to that hidden anti-PC impulse. A conservative should just tell it like it is about the following:

  • Moonbeam’s unrealistic ways;
  • unfettered immigration that is buttressed by welfare;
  • one-room apartments that cost more than the note for a 4,000 square ft house in other states;
  • water nazis and other environmentalist crazies;
  • public employees with huge salaries and pensions who are unaccountable to citizens;
  • insufficient water despite the monitoring, along with incompetent and expensive public employees, without the wherewithal to fight fires that wipe out massively expensive homes;
  • regulations that prevent owners from protecting their property by clearing brush;
  • regulations that prevent homeowners and cities from doing things in neighborhoods to provide affordable housing options;
  • taxes that absorb 40% of salaried income and, for all of that taxpayer expense, sidewalks where citizens must look down all of the time to avoid stepping on the homeless or their excrement. 

 

California used to be the land of rebels, freedom and free speech. Berkeley is now a Birkenstock-clad gulag. Californians cannot make any of their own decisions, even when they are rich.

In reply to by crazytechnician

FireBrander DisorderlyConduct Mon, 04/09/2018 - 10:22 Permalink

According to the Founding Mother of abortion, Margaret Sanger, a modern day Liberal by any measure, abortions main purpose is to (paraphrasing)"control/minimize the reproduction rate of the undesirable races"...that goal lives on, silently, in the hearts of all Liberals through their support of unrestricted, low cost/free, abortions.

Ask a Liberal why Planned Parenthood's locations are mostly in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods; answers will vary, but always laughable.

Margaret viewed Asians as an "undesirable race" too; but Asians proved too smart for the Liberals and passed on their free "reproductive services".

In reply to by DisorderlyConduct

Endgame Napoleon DisorderlyConduct Mon, 04/09/2018 - 13:17 Permalink

The “poorer” libs find it more profitable to have lots of children, qualifying them for maximum pay-per-birth freebies from big government. When the kids turn 18, it is a moment of reckoning for some of those libs, forcing them to “find a job that actually covers rent since she is turning 18 in a month.” Unfortunately, at that point, they are in the same position as many of the single, childless job seekers: looking for jobs that cover a full range of bills without the need for spousal income or welfare and refundable EITC child tax credits up to $6,431 for reproducing while single—jobs that “just are not out there” since so many single-earner moms can get their major household bills, like rent and groceries, paid by government when they work part time, staying below the earned-income limits for welfare.

In reply to by DisorderlyConduct

In Ze No natronic Mon, 04/09/2018 - 14:15 Permalink

The right's (and many reforming lefties) are just over on you tube and the chans listening to Q drops and then the wave of analyses.

Yeah, it might all be a school play meant to distract but it's kind of like reading Tom Clancey.  Only this has some possibility of being true.  Either way, real or contrived, i wouldn't miss this show.

 

In reply to by natronic

Endgame Napoleon AnonymousCitizen Mon, 04/09/2018 - 11:53 Permalink

Woz is funny. I do not think of him as cutthroat.

You would think the technical co-founder of Apple would have more than 5,000 followers. Maybe, he only accepted some followers, trying to keep his social media “life” to proportions that resemble his acquaintanceships in real life, rather than growing a massive, artificial following. 

But people like Woz, including non-famous technical people, do not have to make their living from advertising themselves, not that most people make much from that, anyway. A few people do use FB to increase sales for their businesses.

If you look on social media, the people who sculpted all of this intricate PC and mobile technology—the hardcore technical people—have far fewer followers than the peddlers of the latest marketing / entertainment crazes.

Young people in this crappy-cubed job market would do well to follow the people with the few skills that employers are actually willing to pay something for. 

But these SV people should not throw their competitors under the bus, trying to distinguish their very different products. 

Apple sells phones and tablets, really good phones and tablets that are pleasant to look at and use, but even though it is good that they have privacy standards for the straight-commission app builders that populate their store, Apple does not have to make money through advertising. 

The app builders who make it through Apple’s quality-control process, likewise paying a fee for the chance to sell apps in their store, have to make their living partially through advertising or by offering the option to pay to avoid ads, in addition to the usually rock-bottom low initial app fees. 

All of these online sites should offer a set of options, including the choice to pay a higher fee for zero ad tracking and zero ad space marring the view, a lower fee for zero ad tracking and a free option with both ad tracking and ad space. They have to make money in some way.

Woz knows that. He is probably just explaining the differences.

In reply to by AnonymousCitizen

Endgame Napoleon PrivetHedge Mon, 04/09/2018 - 12:04 Permalink

Regardless of whether software engineers can conquer the technical problems, self-driving cars are going to put even more men out of work, and men are already perilously underemployed. 

But mobile tech has a lot of good points. Remember how much of a pain it was to use PCs that were not crafted for ease of use? That world was confined mostly to tech nerds. Mobile tech opened it up.

Everything in life has a downside. Privacy is the downside of the mobile tech products. They need to get a handle on it, and they need to stop the anti-conservative biases. But no, the tech is not all bad.

In reply to by PrivetHedge

FireBrander johngaltfla Mon, 04/09/2018 - 09:26 Permalink

when one of the Congresscritters get under his thin skin

LOL!

Did you miss the story? 85% of the "Congresscritters" that will be interrogating "Fuckerburg" receive(d) campaign contributions from Facebook...that is why "Fuckerburg" is eager to "testify"; he knows he will be among friends.

This is like Hillary and her email server; once everything is rigged in her favor, she "comes clean" about the dirty deed and apologizes knowing the "punishment" ends there.

In reply to by johngaltfla