Facebook turns over mother and daughter’s chat history to police resulting in abortion charges - eviltoast

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605

A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.

  • LeZero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    To the people shitting on the idea of a default defederation with Meta, how about we deferedate not because it will affect us as posters but because they are evil pieces of shit?

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      yeah, the difference is pretty stark:

      • lemmy: we’ll give you a way to dm anyone on site, but please don’t use that, if you set up an app on this other open source service we’re not affiliated with (which is basically an encrypted discord) we’ll do our best to make it as seamless for you as possible. we’ll keep warning you for your own privacy.
      • meta/facebook: aggressively keeps you on-platform for spying purposes; literally killed xmpp a decade ago and they’ll fuckin do it again (if we let them)

      They trust me. Dumb fucks.

      - Mark Zuckerberg

      (yes it sounds like satire but that’s a real quote)

      • bluejay@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was it Facebook that killed xmpp or Google? Legitimately asking because I’ve always seen that blamed on Google.

        • triarius@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was Google, they Embraced, Extended, and Extinguished it with Google Chat. Then they killed that themselves.

          • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            correction: it was both! fedbook chat also supported xmpp at first, they never federated but you could at least use it with a jabber client. then when they had enough market share they killed it.

            fun semi related fact is that whatsapp, at least a couple of years ago, was using modified ejabberd (ie an xmpp server) as the backend - so arguably they helped with EEE too.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How on earth did Meta kill XMPP, where is that even from lol. They didn’t even have a standalone messaging app until 2011, which is after Google Talk dropped support for XMPP.

        • bogdugg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.

          • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we’re discussing meta/facebook here, and they’re not blameless, i focused on that.

            but yeah, fuck google too.

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              they’re not blameless

              I think we should try to do better here and provide actual reasoning to our statements instead of unbridled rage, regardless of the topic, because this isn’t valuable content. I work in an adjacent industry and I believe that a lot of what people have said lately about this topic is overly sensationalized and I don’t mind discussing it, but “fuck Meta/Google because they’re evil” is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.

              This discussion pyramid was a good post from the other day:

              https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b48a0a91-c7a3-4cc5-a117-6deceedde205.png

              Your comments are “ad hominem” at best.

              • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that’s what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it’s a competitor?

                By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it’s just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.

                Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn’t mean that their actions aren’t actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren’t a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn’t have had the data to hand over to begin with.

                (also, unrelated: you can embed images using the ![](https://image_url) syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol.

                  It is literally ad hominem, that is the definition. We aren’t discussing whether we can trust Meta or not, we’re discussing a specific topic.

                  By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem.

                  It definitely is, but again, we aren’t discussing a person or an entity, we’re discussing a topic related to that person or entity. This isn’t a discussion on whether Meta should be defederated or not, frankly that’s simple, just join an instance that defederates with Meta or don’t, or build your own! There’s a ton of freedom here.

                  And I’m not saying ad hominem arguments can’t be used, but when an argument is entirely made up of ad hominem points while discussing a specific topic it isn’t a good argument.

                  Also, side note, as for trust I definitely don’t think we can trust corporate entities, but I also don’t think we can entirely trust the Fediverse as it exists already. We know there’s been an influx of bot accounts, moderation tools aren’t great yet, and every platform attracts bad actors.

                  (also, unrelated: you can embed images using the ![](https://image_url) syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)

                  Thanks for the tip! Haven’t been able to get that working well here, I think I was missing the exclamation mark.

              • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                in a thread where we’re discussing how meta helped religiofascists violate someone’s human rights “meta is evil” is a summary, not an ad hominem

              • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Abstraction is a cancer to society. Their comment was not ad hominem, yours however is hairsplitting to give rise to a conflict that never existed. If you are trying to correct misinformation, you do not really seem that articulate in conveying your word.

                • Steeve@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Fine, their comments are nonsense that aren’t based in reality and the Fediverse and it’s communities will suffer the fate of every other echo chamber shithole social media if it’s moderators don’t take action and make a conscious decision to tackle misinformation, regardless of whether or not it fits their personal bias. Better?

      • favrion@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was a quote from 13 years ago when he didn’t know how massive his enterprise would become. People change.

        As for him, he became more evil.

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But also fuck these laws and the people passing them and the people voting for the people passing them. They’re the real evil.

      We have to always assume rich corporations are going to do whatever serves their best interest. It’s nature. Like a mantis is gonna bite off her mate’s head when they’re done mating. It’s up to governing factors to keep them in check. On that note, +1 to defederate. They will cannibalize or however abuse Lemmy if it will make them a penny.

    • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you saying that the individuals who run these servers and instances aren’t subject to the same laws? I read the article, and Facebook complied with a court order.

      You don’t think anyone running Lemmy would do the same without access to lawyers and capital like Facebook has?

      • LeZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you have to run your lemmy instance in the US?

        Maybe do it in a less backward place

        • Brownboy13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And how can we be sure that all the instances federated with any instance we participate on aren’t run by law enforcement themselves? I’d be surprised if there aren’t running instances by every major investigative agency themselves.

          • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is why everyone should take steps to protect their privacy. You don’t have to go 0-100 overnight. Just audit yourself and do a few things now. Keep those habits up. Then audit and add a few more things, repeat.

            I need to do this myself, I’ve been slipping

      • 2MnyDcksOnThDncFlr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I totally agree with your sentiment… However they don’t have a choice. They are legally obligated to turn that information over if they are served a warrant. Doing anything less is obstruction at the very least and they could be shut down and put into receivership.

        The fault here is with the two individuals trusting a corporation to keep data private and to put the individuals interests ahead of the corporation. Neither is a realistic expectation.