6 ms·

EFF vs. Facebook: Part 2: "Facebook's Connections"

76 points by bjonathan 16y ago

keltex 16y ago
Sounds like advertisers are getting screwed too: Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it. (For example, if you use the word "FBI" in a post). Let's say you put "xbox" on your wall. Now you're connected to Xbox. Does an advertiser get the distinction between "this person has visited the xbox website and said they liked it (a good candidate to sell a video game) vs. this person just happened to type xbox on their wall (probably not as good of a candidate).
- natrius 16y ago
  I haven't seen what the EFF is describing. The things that show up in "Related Global Posts" aren't "Connections". They're basically search results from posts that have their privacy set to "Everyone". The only way to show up as someone who "likes" Xbox is to click a like button somewhere.
  - aristus 16y ago
    You are correct. The sixth thing in this article is inaccurate.
  - mothaiba 16y ago
    This article explains how Community pages work. My posts with certain key words are posted in a semi-public community page. My guess is that those in my very extended network can see it: http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-on-facebook-can-go-to.html http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-s....
    - natrius 16y ago
      Who cares? No posts are being exposed to people who couldn't already see them.
ohashi 16y ago
I've simply refused... seems to be a dark path they are going down if you're a user... but at the same time I find myself stuck with it as it's an important part of how I manage my life. They know that and that's why they keep screwing us.
what 16y ago
Most of these points are reasonable for Facebook. They're just saying that if you don't like the idea of the "connections," then don't share any information. At least you've been told that that information will be publicly visible, period. The fact that they keep your data even after you delete it from your profile isn't unreasonable either. Did you really think they would destroy all traces of your data just because you have removed it from your profile? I bet Google keeps your emails after you delete them. The only thing that bothers me is point 6. > Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it. This is a little sneaky. I wouldn't have a problem if the connections were just behind the scenes (ie: not visible). Then it would be no different from Google checking for keywords in your emails so that they can target ads at you.
- DrSprout 16y ago
  I recently went in to update some minor thing on my profile, and I had to delete all my interests, activities, etc. because Facebook wanted to make them into connections, and would not let me leave them as they were.
- aristus 16y ago
  Point 6 is inaccurate. As far as I know it's not a "Connection" in way they are claiming. It's a search on recent posts that appear in the "related posts" boxes. The "FBI" example is nice and scary, but the same holds true for Puppies and Rainbows. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116 (disclaimer: I work for Facebook)
  - what 16y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. But I hope they only appear if your posts are public. Otherwise, that's even worse.
  - mothaiba 16y ago
    Who can see it though? It appears that a very extended network can view certain wall posts of mine with select words, even though I've limited all my wall posts to select friends. http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-on-facebook-can-go-to.html http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-s...
jeromewbrock 16y ago
It's akin to the lobster-in-a-boiling-pot scenario. Put a lobster in already boiling water and it screams, stick it in room-temp water and heat to boiling and the lobster won't notice it's being cooked until it's too late...
- pohl 16y ago
  Thank you for using a lobster instead of a frog, because I went to see if lobsters were mentioned on the wikipedia page for boiling frogs, and there was a reference there to another entry for "creeping normalcy". I like that phrase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy
  - fnid2 16y ago
    The frog one is false http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
    - pohl 16y ago
      Yeah, it's frustrating that it gets propagated as truth rather than allegory. Some day I'd like it to find a home amongst Aesop's fables. The fox and the grapes, the tortise and the hare, the boiling frog...
ErrantX 16y ago
Is it possible to see someone's connections in a systematic way? (i.e. other than randomly appearing in the small box to the left of the connections page). The only bit that holds a particularly serious concern to me is the global snippets bit which drags your wall posts out into the connections page - I've seen some random and utterly irrelevant messages appear there and that is worrying... (it would, perhaps, be better if they implemented the # tag style system similar to what they've done with @name now)
alttab 16y ago
I've started a status update campaign for all of my Facebook friends to educate themselves on these matters. I'm leaving my college pictures up there because its not unheard of to be a drunk American college student, plus these years are behind me. But my Facebook activity is now limited to keeping in touch with my friends by reading their content. Not the other way around. Next thing we know our inboxes are public. We simply can't trust Mark anymore.
philk 16y ago
I can't help but wonder if this opens up a niche in the marketplace for a social networking site that actually does respect your privacy.
- FinnVillus 16y ago
  The real question is: could such a site be profitable and respect your privacy?
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    The marginal costs are pretty small. It could easily be handled by a site with an emphasis on simplicity like Craigslist. Personally, I would prefer a non-profit. I can't stand a private company like Facebook being the primary gateway to my social life. I would like to see multiple companies involved, but it would be a lot more difficult to get the network benefits of Facebook with multiple sites.
    - anonjon 16y ago
      Or some sort of distributed system with a number of servers provided by anyone, acting on a specified protocol, allowing you to pull from one network to the other. Like the http or smtp, except for posting short messages about what you had for lunch and funny pictures of your cat.
  - mortenjorck 16y ago
    A couple of years ago when FB first started causing privacy concerns, I sketched out a model for a freemium social networking site with user privacy as the top selling point. After deciding it was too early for the target market to consist of anything but Slashdot posters, I forgot about it. Is it time to think about it again, or is it just Slashdot and HN posters this time?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- wingo 16y ago
mattmillr 16y ago
I haven't been particularly concerned with the privacy implications. I tend to operate under the assumption that stuff I post online is public. But this latest change has another implication: it decreases the ability for expression on my profile. For example, in the Favorite Music section, I had shared a favorite lyric. Now, I'm limited to just listing bands. While I understand the monetization reasons for "normalizing" the profiles, ultimately it makes them less interesting. I want to read a free-form description of a friends activities. A normalized bullet-list is much less attractive. Until now, my take on Facebook has been "I'm not too excited about the way they do things, but it's where I keep up with people who aren't engaged in other platforms." If future changes decrease the utility of the platform like this one does, that argument for staying won't hold much longer.
motters 16y ago
Like some others I assume that anything I put online is public information, but not everyone has this view. For the naive user a site like Facebook appears to be just about you and your small circle of friends. Especially for people who are younger and perhaps not so worldly it would be incredibly easy to post things on Facebook which you might come to regret a few years later - especially if future employers and insurance companies are trawling through your data and looking at your connections. I don't think it's good enough for the folks at Facebook just to say "Privacy is dead. Get over it". In the real world those people who are not rampant exhibitionists do want and expect to have some level of privacy - some degree of control over what information they give to who. Ultimately it's about the dignity and integrity of the individual.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

76 points by bjonathan 16y ago

Sounds like advertisers are getting screwed too: Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it. (For example, if you use the word "FBI" in a post). Let's say you put "xbox" on your wall. Now you're connected to Xbox. Does an advertiser get the distinction between "this person has visited the xbox website and said they liked it (a good candidate to sell a video game) vs. this person just happened to type xbox on their wall (probably not as good of a candidate).

natrius 16y ago
I haven't seen what the EFF is describing. The things that show up in "Related Global Posts" aren't "Connections". They're basically search results from posts that have their privacy set to "Everyone". The only way to show up as someone who "likes" Xbox is to click a like button somewhere.
- aristus 16y ago
  You are correct. The sixth thing in this article is inaccurate.
- mothaiba 16y ago
  This article explains how Community pages work. My posts with certain key words are posted in a semi-public community page. My guess is that those in my very extended network can see it: http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-on-facebook-can-go-to.html http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-s....
  - natrius 16y ago
    Who cares? No posts are being exposed to people who couldn't already see them.

ohashi 16y ago

I've simply refused... seems to be a dark path they are going down if you're a user... but at the same time I find myself stuck with it as it's an important part of how I manage my life. They know that and that's why they keep screwing us.

what 16y ago

Most of these points are reasonable for Facebook. They're just saying that if you don't like the idea of the "connections," then don't share any information. At least you've been told that that information will be publicly visible, period. The fact that they keep your data even after you delete it from your profile isn't unreasonable either. Did you really think they would destroy all traces of your data just because you have removed it from your profile? I bet Google keeps your emails after you delete them. The only thing that bothers me is point 6. > Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection Page, without you even knowing it. This is a little sneaky. I wouldn't have a problem if the connections were just behind the scenes (ie: not visible). Then it would be no different from Google checking for keywords in your emails so that they can target ads at you.

DrSprout 16y ago
I recently went in to update some minor thing on my profile, and I had to delete all my interests, activities, etc. because Facebook wanted to make them into connections, and would not let me leave them as they were.
aristus 16y ago
Point 6 is inaccurate. As far as I know it's not a "Connection" in way they are claiming. It's a search on recent posts that appear in the "related posts" boxes. The "FBI" example is nice and scary, but the same holds true for Puppies and Rainbows. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116 (disclaimer: I work for Facebook)
- what 16y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. But I hope they only appear if your posts are public. Otherwise, that's even worse.
- mothaiba 16y ago
  Who can see it though? It appears that a very extended network can view certain wall posts of mine with select words, even though I've limited all my wall posts to select friends. http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-on-facebook-can-go-to.html http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-s...

jeromewbrock 16y ago

It's akin to the lobster-in-a-boiling-pot scenario. Put a lobster in already boiling water and it screams, stick it in room-temp water and heat to boiling and the lobster won't notice it's being cooked until it's too late...

pohl 16y ago
Thank you for using a lobster instead of a frog, because I went to see if lobsters were mentioned on the wikipedia page for boiling frogs, and there was a reference there to another entry for "creeping normalcy". I like that phrase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy
- fnid2 16y ago
  The frog one is false http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
  - pohl 16y ago
    Yeah, it's frustrating that it gets propagated as truth rather than allegory. Some day I'd like it to find a home amongst Aesop's fables. The fox and the grapes, the tortise and the hare, the boiling frog...

ErrantX 16y ago

Is it possible to see someone's connections in a systematic way? (i.e. other than randomly appearing in the small box to the left of the connections page). The only bit that holds a particularly serious concern to me is the global snippets bit which drags your wall posts out into the connections page - I've seen some random and utterly irrelevant messages appear there and that is worrying... (it would, perhaps, be better if they implemented the # tag style system similar to what they've done with @name now)

alttab 16y ago

I've started a status update campaign for all of my Facebook friends to educate themselves on these matters. I'm leaving my college pictures up there because its not unheard of to be a drunk American college student, plus these years are behind me. But my Facebook activity is now limited to keeping in touch with my friends by reading their content. Not the other way around. Next thing we know our inboxes are public. We simply can't trust Mark anymore.

philk 16y ago

I can't help but wonder if this opens up a niche in the marketplace for a social networking site that actually does respect your privacy.

FinnVillus 16y ago
The real question is: could such a site be profitable and respect your privacy?
- DrSprout 16y ago
  The marginal costs are pretty small. It could easily be handled by a site with an emphasis on simplicity like Craigslist. Personally, I would prefer a non-profit. I can't stand a private company like Facebook being the primary gateway to my social life. I would like to see multiple companies involved, but it would be a lot more difficult to get the network benefits of Facebook with multiple sites.
  - anonjon 16y ago
    Or some sort of distributed system with a number of servers provided by anyone, acting on a specified protocol, allowing you to pull from one network to the other. Like the http or smtp, except for posting short messages about what you had for lunch and funny pictures of your cat.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  A couple of years ago when FB first started causing privacy concerns, I sketched out a model for a freemium social networking site with user privacy as the top selling point. After deciding it was too early for the target market to consist of anything but Slashdot posters, I forgot about it. Is it time to think about it again, or is it just Slashdot and HN posters this time?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
wingo 16y ago

mattmillr 16y ago

I haven't been particularly concerned with the privacy implications. I tend to operate under the assumption that stuff I post online is public. But this latest change has another implication: it decreases the ability for expression on my profile. For example, in the Favorite Music section, I had shared a favorite lyric. Now, I'm limited to just listing bands. While I understand the monetization reasons for "normalizing" the profiles, ultimately it makes them less interesting. I want to read a free-form description of a friends activities. A normalized bullet-list is much less attractive. Until now, my take on Facebook has been "I'm not too excited about the way they do things, but it's where I keep up with people who aren't engaged in other platforms." If future changes decrease the utility of the platform like this one does, that argument for staying won't hold much longer.

motters 16y ago

Like some others I assume that anything I put online is public information, but not everyone has this view. For the naive user a site like Facebook appears to be just about you and your small circle of friends. Especially for people who are younger and perhaps not so worldly it would be incredibly easy to post things on Facebook which you might come to regret a few years later - especially if future employers and insurance companies are trawling through your data and looking at your connections. I don't think it's good enough for the folks at Facebook just to say "Privacy is dead. Get over it". In the real world those people who are not rampant exhibitionists do want and expect to have some level of privacy - some degree of control over what information they give to who. Ultimately it's about the dignity and integrity of the individual.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]