Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life - Comments on Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy

Comment by jack on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (jack) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:30:53 GMT

The moral of the story is 'never give all your [true information] to a 3rd party unless what it gives you in exchange is deemed to be worth it by you'. Now since FB has your data, the best option is to obfuscate it enough to not disturb your network of friends but not give FB enough to create a true profile.

Posted by: jack

Comment by Handy on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Handy) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:01:33 GMT

great job :D:D:D

Posted by: Handy

Comment by Mike Gale on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Mike Gale) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:13:46 GMT

I don't believe that 50% of facebook users really accepted the new terms. 1) For 50% to have rejected them and thus gone to some extra effort says a lot about the opposition level. There are always those who don't look too closely, I'm guessing that many of those in the "acceptance" camp are those. 2) If you said (do it later) the horrible monsters who designed it then convert you to the new way. Talk about doing evil. The logical approach is to keep it as was and ask you again next time!! Understandably they want to make money. Unfortunately they lack a moral compass.

Posted by: Mike Gale

Comment by ChadP on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (ChadP) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:43:16 GMT

You've done a good job of outlining why Facebook would want to open up their data. However, I think debate right now is about the way they did it. First, unlike twitter, they are changing an existing social contract they had with their users. Second, their permission system is arguably over complicated and it does seem to be intentional so unsuspecting/non-techy users are tricked into making their data public.

Posted by: ChadP

Comment by Gordon Weakliem on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Gordon Weakliem) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:10:13 GMT

Based on what I see in my FB news feed, some subset of FB users regard FB and Twitter as the same thing and crosspost to both twitter and their FB status, so for them the distinction is moot. (BTW, you're missing a legend on the 1st chart, though I figured it out from context)

Posted by: Gordon Weakliem

Comment by Michael on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Michael) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:00:51 GMT

Great analysis. Facebook is doing an about face because while they once defined the party, the party has moved. It's kind of cyclical, though. Remember the early photo sharing sites prior to Facebook and Youtube. Some defined themselves by their privacy, others defined themselves by their community. For a while, it looked like the privacy camp had a lot going for it, but then the surge of new digital cameras and voyeurs/exhibitionists online pushed the "open by default" sites way ahead. The "private only" sites were left playing catch-up. Then Facebook came and made them all irrelevant. I'm sure the keen business analysts at Facebook understand this phenomenon and have taken the lessons of the early 2000's to heart. By the way, are you sure the story is that 50% of users have accepted the new defaults? The real story would seem to be that 50% of users *haven't*. That's a large fraction of the community to take action and go against the officially sanctioned settings. Getting 50% of your members to do anything is hard.

Posted by: Michael

Comment by Michael Ekstrand on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Michael Ekstrand) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:42:55 GMT

Yes, they're innovating "courageously". However, some previous design and policy decisions must necessarily restrict future development. Publishing data previously provided under a reasonable understanding and expectation of privacy is unethical, plain and simple. Sure, security holes meant that the friend lists were almost as visible under the old situation as they are now, but the solution is to fix the security holes, not to make retroactive privacy changes. Facebook could have made this change ethically if it either allowed indefinite activity under the old policy (*including* keeping everything private) without bugging the users, or provided a clear and comprehensible description of exactly what the changes entail and allow with a prominently-displayed "I no longer wish to participate, delete my account now" button. The latter is still sketchy, though, as its network effect is a pretty powerful implicit coercion factor. The innovation may be praiseworthy, but its method of execution is reprehensible. "Sticking to the status quo", when it means abiding by previous privacy commitments, is not boring. It is professional.

Posted by: Michael Ekstrand

Comment by Kishor Gurtu on "Some thoughts on Facebook's change of stance on user privacy"

suppressed@unknown.org (Kishor Gurtu) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:23:36 GMT

That's not about public vs. private. It's more about FB status updates being about bra color and mafia war updates. That is why nobody wants to search FB.

Posted by: Kishor Gurtu