Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by dunder on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @04:26AM
(#8420099)
>It's annoying that such articles take it for granted that social network = FB / G+ way of doing things.
It's annoying when people are uptight about something that's merely pragmatic. They're talking about social networks people use and know about.
Including Diaspora, a network almost no one has ever heard about, would be completely counter intuitive. Diaspora simply isn't an alternative for the overwhelming majority of users of active social networks.
Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by shmerl on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @10:37AM
(#8421392)
> Diaspora simply isn't an alternative for the overwhelming majority of users of active social networks.
That's bunk, simply because people already use it and it is a functional alternative.
Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by cheepin on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @12:18AM
(#8419641)
It's not unreasonable to assume Google/Facebook considering their market share (especially if you count Google's control over Android). http://www.marketingcharts.com/updates/top-10-social-network...
Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by shmerl on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @12:22AM
(#8419653)
Market share doesn't preclude the existence of choice. So the article shouldn't put it as if there aren't any better alternatives.
Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by HaloZero on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @12:46AM
(#8419698)
In the case of social networks where a network is only as useful as the other people on it, it might not necessitate that there is no alternative but practically there isn't.
Re:Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem
by shmerl on Tuesday October 07, 2014 @01:26AM
(#8419778)
Diaspora* is quite useful for a constantly growing number of users.
Your thesis however is wrong, which is demonstrated by the fact that any network starts with no users. I.e. any network goes through the growth process, when newcomers see it as rather barren in the early days. Diaspora* isn't at that stage anymore.
Not so, if you use a privacy respecting one like Diaspora*. Not that it offers a robust protection against either attackers or the Big Brother. But the network itself is not built to profit from users' data which is a huge difference in attitude.
It's annoying that such articles take it for granted that social network = FB / G+ way of doing things.