4 ms·

Did you read the three sentences on the top of that dialog? The third one reads, "Remember, your Pages are public". There is a more detailed explanation linked

Did you read the three sentences on the top of that dialog? The third one reads, "Remember, your Pages are public". There is a more detailed explanation linked off of the "Learn more" link. [I work for Facebook, but my opinions are my own].

sgman 16y ago
Why not add an option to not make the pages public on that modal dialog? I can do it in the settings after all..
- indigoviolet 16y ago
  No, Page connections are public. I don't think you can change that under Privacy settings -- you can not display them on your Profile if you so choose. The dialog took the conservative option of warning you that things were becoming public, rather than adding a potentially confusing "hide Pages" option on the dialog.
  - greyfade 16y ago
    I find this distateful. There's no Earthly reason to make those connections public except to expose personally-identifying information that the individual may not want to have exposed. This, to me, is a nightmare of Orwellian proportions. Take my advice: pull the plug.
mikeknoop 16y ago
Yes, that sentence does seek to inform users that their new Page connections are public -- especially those you take the time to read the dialog. However, in the last few days I've run across many Facebook users who chose to make these public connections when previously they had their interests and likes private. I suspect most of them clicked through the dialog without reading it or fully understanding the ramifications of their actions. You could argue that the user's ignorance and lack of reading available explanation is their problem, but it just seems a little unethical (on the grounds of previously knowing average users will click through dialogs) overall.
- indigoviolet 16y ago
  I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?
  - mikeknoop 16y ago
    In my personal opinion, I argue that the effort to make before-private settings now-public with user confirmation is the "unethical" part, not necessarily the implementation. I will cede a point here: calling it unethical may be a little bit too strong. But I definitely do not agree with the decision, for the following reason: Knowing that a design change will cause a certain percentage of the user base to expose their personal information (which retroactively they did not wish to make public) while providing little added benefit to the end user is what bothers me. Facebook is known for its perseverance in the face of user complaints, which I can respect. I thoroughly agree that at times user complaints and petitions (such as those against the various site redesigns) are unfounded, as there is a clear greater good. I do not see the greater good of the new public-pages push, and thus, do not respect the effort to push user information into a more public space. If you could point out benefits users receive by making more of their information public, perhaps I could be convinced. [edited for spelling]
    - indigoviolet 16y ago
      IMO, the benefits are from having your interests represented in a structured format. For example, you can now go to Pandora, and Pandora knows what music you like [and what music your friends like]. You can start actually building up an identity and using it across the web. There are tons of possibilities for features useful to users that come from having a structured list of what you like and don't like. Hopefully you'll see Facebook make good on the promise to give you more useful things based on the structured information in the near future. The privacy changes are a side effect of having these be connections instead of free text. Keep in mind the number of connections that an average user makes (all the Likes they attach to Pages, to Open Graph objects, friend connections) - would you have a Privacy control per connection? It's already not an easy task to keep the privacy controls so the average user can understand and use them correctly [and we can always improve this] -- just imagine the complexity we'd add to the system. What exists instead is the ability for you to control the visibility of all these connections on your own Profile. "Public" means that your association with these objects may appear elsewhere [for example, a friend may reveal that you're friends with them, or a Page may reveal you Like that Page.]. I think this is a decent balance between giving the user what they want primarily (to control whether visitors to their Profile see that they are connected to something), and managing overall complexity. [Edit: this is my opinion, I perhaps don't know enough about the privacy decisions to represent them completely. ]

sgman 16y ago

Why not add an option to not make the pages public on that modal dialog? I can do it in the settings after all..

indigoviolet 16y ago
No, Page connections are public. I don't think you can change that under Privacy settings -- you can not display them on your Profile if you so choose. The dialog took the conservative option of warning you that things were becoming public, rather than adding a potentially confusing "hide Pages" option on the dialog.
- greyfade 16y ago
  I find this distateful. There's no Earthly reason to make those connections public except to expose personally-identifying information that the individual may not want to have exposed. This, to me, is a nightmare of Orwellian proportions. Take my advice: pull the plug.

mikeknoop 16y ago

Yes, that sentence does seek to inform users that their new Page connections are public -- especially those you take the time to read the dialog. However, in the last few days I've run across many Facebook users who chose to make these public connections when previously they had their interests and likes private. I suspect most of them clicked through the dialog without reading it or fully understanding the ramifications of their actions. You could argue that the user's ignorance and lack of reading available explanation is their problem, but it just seems a little unethical (on the grounds of previously knowing average users will click through dialogs) overall.

indigoviolet 16y ago
I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?
- mikeknoop 16y ago
  In my personal opinion, I argue that the effort to make before-private settings now-public with user confirmation is the "unethical" part, not necessarily the implementation. I will cede a point here: calling it unethical may be a little bit too strong. But I definitely do not agree with the decision, for the following reason: Knowing that a design change will cause a certain percentage of the user base to expose their personal information (which retroactively they did not wish to make public) while providing little added benefit to the end user is what bothers me. Facebook is known for its perseverance in the face of user complaints, which I can respect. I thoroughly agree that at times user complaints and petitions (such as those against the various site redesigns) are unfounded, as there is a clear greater good. I do not see the greater good of the new public-pages push, and thus, do not respect the effort to push user information into a more public space. If you could point out benefits users receive by making more of their information public, perhaps I could be convinced. [edited for spelling]
  - indigoviolet 16y ago
    IMO, the benefits are from having your interests represented in a structured format. For example, you can now go to Pandora, and Pandora knows what music you like [and what music your friends like]. You can start actually building up an identity and using it across the web. There are tons of possibilities for features useful to users that come from having a structured list of what you like and don't like. Hopefully you'll see Facebook make good on the promise to give you more useful things based on the structured information in the near future. The privacy changes are a side effect of having these be connections instead of free text. Keep in mind the number of connections that an average user makes (all the Likes they attach to Pages, to Open Graph objects, friend connections) - would you have a Privacy control per connection? It's already not an easy task to keep the privacy controls so the average user can understand and use them correctly [and we can always improve this] -- just imagine the complexity we'd add to the system. What exists instead is the ability for you to control the visibility of all these connections on your own Profile. "Public" means that your association with these objects may appear elsewhere [for example, a friend may reveal that you're friends with them, or a Page may reveal you Like that Page.]. I think this is a decent balance between giving the user what they want primarily (to control whether visitors to their Profile see that they are connected to something), and managing overall complexity. [Edit: this is my opinion, I perhaps don't know enough about the privacy decisions to represent them completely. ]