32 billion still is nothing for these scumbags
JAIL MARC ZUCKERBERG ALREADY. That is still what we do with criminals, is it not?
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
442 points (99.8% liked)
Privacy
39011 readers
1181 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Not the rich ones. See Trump and all his cronies.
That is still what we do with working class criminals
FTFY
That is still what we do with criminals
Haha
No, we elect them as president
Its reliant on running a normie phone and OS, and running the native FB, instagram, or other apps in the Meta constellation. These apps create persistent services that internally backchannel sensitive browser data back to them via internal ports. All browser traffic on devices running these apps should be considered compromised.
The solution is to run Graphene or other de-googled OS and avoid Meta apps like the plague.
The solution is to have stronger privacy laws.
If everyone followed your solution then Graphene will become the normie os and Facebook will start targeting it. Choosing an esoteric system for yourself is a good way for a free people to protect their privacy, but it won't scale.
When we write our new constitution we need to include privacy as a right.
grapheneOS isn't security through obscurity, they make efforts to harden the phone's privacy. You're right that, if it was mainstream, Meta would target it directly though.
The solution is to remove the profit motive from acquiring, selling, and monetizing our data. Laws alone don't stop big corps from doing things.
The solution is to have stronger privacy laws.
Many people have the power to make certain privacy attacks impossible right now. I consider making that change better for those people than adding a law which can't stop the behavior, but just adds a negative incentive.
I wouldn't wait around for the law to prosecute MITM attacks, I would use end to end encryption.
Choosing an esoteric system for yourself is a good way for a free people to protect their privacy, but it won't scale.
If this is referencing using a barely-used system as a privacy or security protection, then I would regard that as bad protection.
Everyone using GrapheneOS would be a net security upgrade. All the protections in place wouldn't just fade away now that Facebook wants to spy on that OS. They're still in place; Facebook's job is still harder than it otherwise would be.
The problem is that GrapheneOS is only available for Pixel devices.
I really wish they would support other manufacturers, because I don't really trust Google to make decent hardware (and to be frank, I don't trust them with anything at all).
I use e/os which is at least de-googled & based on Lineage
Its not exactly Graphene but it works on 8+ old devices of various manifacturers
I am very keen to get a Fairphone with e/os next time I switch devices.
Does it work well with Android Auto? I can't drive much without a map and my music playlist.
did not test that but here is a page how to "google" the "de-googled" os for supporting that
https://doc.e.foundation/support-topics/android-auto
because of that lineage could be a better option
About Fairphone: there is an alternative (Shiftphone) that is more expensive but with the main plus points of having a higher storage option and the mainboard is replaceable, they also have somewhere a cheap (~200€) phone that should work if you really just need a phone
(i mention that as an option, because having choice is always better even if it ends up being the first thing that gets choosen)
The solution is public execution of at least a few tech CEOs. Then you'll see how quick the invisible hand of the market seems to stop demanding profit maximization via spyware.
LMAO. You're not wrong...
Don't forget to also select a few shareholders for the sacrifice, those are what CEOs try to please.
Yeah, start from the biggest shareholder that ain't the CEO
We need many more Luigis (allegedly)
Almost sounds like you're blaming the user while also not understanding that a de-google phone isn't the solution because it's not part of the tracking.
While this is true, it's worth clarifying that GrapheneOS in particular is able to run apps sandboxed, so they can't communicate with eachother as they can on a stock OS.
Having said that, no one should expect that their right to privacy is given (or fought for), unless they take it first. Yes, laws and all, but user education is the bigger issue.
Users were onboarded onto the Internet before they had an understanding of the differences between cyberspace and meatspace, and how that could affect them. Placing the blame (and solutions) solely on third-parties is a dangerous mistake.
No, it is Meta and these companies fault, but I focus on things I can actually control. Just spewing the party line default Lemmy opinion of "capitalism is the problem, blah" doesn't do anything to solve the problem.
Educating people so they understand how the surveillance works, and explaining that there are alternatives, actually gets us closer to a solution.
The solution is to ~~run Graphene or other de-googled OS and~~ avoid Meta ~~apps~~ like the plague.
FTFY
Doesn't matter what OS you use.
I used Facebook on my GOS phone. I thank Meta for refreshing my weariness of big corp.
I think this would warrant to get all websites using the facebook pixel on safe browsing lists and AV databases as infected with malware.
Maybe then the pressure on meta would be big enough to stop this shit, if all websites stopped to not use that anymore.
Btw, does anyone know if the localhost tracking is implemented in Whatsapp as well, or just FB and Instagram?
WhatsApp is owned by Meta, so you should expect that they will do this soon enough if they aren't doing it already.
I would bet a ton of money on WhatsApp being a spy machine in a way people don’t know yet. Their bullshit of end to end encryption and privacy while being a free app is undoubtedly some ruse to squeeze data out of people. There isn’t a fucking doubt in my mind.
Facebook is owning and operating a free and private messaging service? To what end? Yeah, nah. Not fuckin buying it.
My guess is that in some form they track contacts and link clicks. I genuinely don't think they're reading messages, but I think they do know eg that Bob is someone that likes to send people links and that there are 5 people that always open those links. So they may have directed model of linked topics between people.
Even if this isn't true though, owning WhatsApp probably gives Meta a lot of culture impact in a similar way to Google and Gmail. The fact that they could create their Meta AI model and put it in front of like a billion people overnight won't be lost on shareholders.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
im wondering, does using uBlock help in any way? can they block metas pixel and thereby protect you?
You can Block WebRTC via uBlock.
From my understanding, this, along with setting Meta on fire, may mitigate the issue.
Let the Zucc feel the heat
Is that going to make video conference harder to use?
Yes. Because it blocks the meta pixel script from loading to begin with.
I would say it prevents the downloading and execution of such a script. DNS adblock would probably help too.
there is a blocklist with a name like block outsider intrusion to lan, but it's off by default
This feels like people should go to prison over it
You’re not affected if (and only if)
You always used the Brave browser or the DuckDuckGo search engine on mobile
I found that odd, but reading the more technical write up (linked in the article) it seems Brave blocks localhost communication.
The Chrome proposal references a single use case. I've never seen a website that sets up my local devices, but is this a new thing?
Why did localhost not get blocked earlier? This seems like a huge hole browsers have ignored for years.
Also the DuckDuckGo exception doesn't make sense to me. Does DuckDuckGo have Facebook trackers on it to begin with? Whatever site DuckDuckGo sends you to, if they have the trackers, you'll get tracked.
I suspect they might mean duckduckgo browser and not search engine?
I completely forgot that existed! Double checking the technical article they do correctly label it as a browser in their testing matrix/grid.
I just got confused by the clear "Brave browser" call out. When I hear DuckDuckGo I definitely don't think browser.
Good catch!
Also if you don't have the Facebook or instagram apps on your phone.
This is the way... even better, have no Meta accounts of any kind
On pc jetbrains toolbox uses localhost to login via browser for some reason, which was blocked by one of my extensions
Because if they were to block it, it would break lots of things, like when they broke file:// and users have no way to turn it back on except enable dev mode or debug mode, let alone having some easy way to toggle it on a per domain or per container basis..
Oh, malware I think it's called
Hmmm. That reminds me that I need to check to make sure the router is blocking all Facebook traffic.
I can't see from this article whether "could cost" means there are lawsuits ongoing/pending, or just the author has speculated what the fine could be if there were a lawsuit?
"Could" lol
The more it costs them the better
view more: next ›