4 ms·

Senator Al Franken Facebook privacy settings

88 points by kp212 16y ago

Aetius 16y ago
No, those links at the bottom aren't adsense. He's not that web savvy!
Qz 16y ago
They aren't going to stop until someone sues the $@%& out of them.
- dcurtis 16y ago
  Remember News Feed? People freaked out, started screaming about suing, etc. Just watch: people will get more comfortable sharing their basic information, and you will too. This privacy freakout is really amazing to me.
  - natrius 16y ago
    The Instant Personalization stuff has potential to actually be an issue, but everything else seems like an overreaction.
    - Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
      Well, yeah, people are getting kind of twitchy about Facebook privacy issues. It's like Water Torture -- the individual drops of water are basically harmless but they just keep falling and you have no idea when the next one's coming. Most people aren't wired to deal with that very well. I've already had to deal with two stupid surprises in the last week: the expansion of their ability to track your use of other sites, and their mandatory conversion of your likes/interests/employer/etc. information into "likes" on an automatically-generated community page. The former is genuinely intrusive, and while the latter is arguably trivial it creates another entire layer of crap I have to manage. (I also lost most of my likes & interests in the conversion because it wasn't clear that disallowing the "like" would actually delete the entry. Pricks.) When I first joined I was kind of amused at my friends who had registered under pseudonyms -- but the benefits are becoming apparent.
  - pedalpete 16y ago
    Remember Beacon? The News Feed is shared with people you know, and only people you have added as Friends (or sometimes one step removed when somebody you know comments on a photo or something). Beacon was about selling your information to advertisers and 3rd parties whom you had a very loose connection with. The example being the guy who bought his engagement ring and had it broadcast via facebook before he was even engaged. With the news feed, you control the information which is posted (with the exception of being tagged in photos). Now Facebook is sharing your information with 3rd parties whom you have NO connection with. I don't use Docs, Yelp, or Pandora, but they were given access to all my information. Remember, they were 'given' access before Facebook announced what was happening. Before we had the option to opt-out.
    - dcurtis 16y ago
      Beacon was great because it showed that Facebook isn't scared to take risks. They later admitted it was a bad idea. I'd rather a company like Facebook err on the side of innovation.
      - seldo 16y ago
        Selling my information to third parties without permission or prior notification is neither innovative nor brave.
        julio_the_squid 16y ago
        I suppose you could say it's 'brave', though, in the same way that trying to swindle someone and hoping they don't notice is brave.
        jrockway 16y ago
        That's not what "brave" means.
        bonaldi 16y ago
  - jayair 16y ago
    The demographic is vastly different now. Imagine this sorta thing goes on the 6 o'clock news which parents would interpret as a hazard to their family's privacy. Most of the current demographic will not understand Facebook's privacy settings. And the whole freakout over this is will be blown out of proportion to the point where parents are going to tell each other to "protect" their kids on Facebook or worse demand some sort of legislation that does. One of the biggest reasons I think this might happen is because a vast majority of people still trust what they hear on the TV or radio over some website or online document that says Facebook cares about your privacy.
    - Qz 16y ago
      "Most of the current demographic will not understand Facebook's privacy settings." That's because they're intentionally byzantine.
  - bonaldi 16y ago
    This is becoming a FB blindspot. Zuckerburg (and FB in general) now just dismiss all criticism of any changes they make because -- hey! News Feed was criticised. I don't know that betting your business against growing storms of criticism on nothing more than a reverse gambler's fallacy is the best plan, tbh.
wheaties 16y ago
Evidently he's given a lot of thought to the flow and control of personal information posted by users on the internet. It would be nice if websites followed the "opt in" rather than the "opt out" route when it comes to these things. It would be even nicer if some senator made this the defacto standard...
- hugh3 16y ago
  Do you really want to see this kind of government control of the internet? I can guarantee that any new law designed to prevent facebook privacy violations would wind up having all sorts of awful unintended consequences for the rest of the internet. Hugh's first rule of government: the unintended consequences of any major government action almost always wind up being more significant than the intended consequences. (See also: social security, Iraq war, emancipation proclamation.)
  - shaddi 16y ago
    Accidental downvote, sorry. Would have emailed you if you had contact info in your profile.
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  I don't have a problem with opt-out when you sign up for a web service. For example, on Twitter the default is for your stream to be open to the public but you can opt to lock your account so only approved users can follow you. That leads to stronger network effects faster, and creates a more usable tool for everyone. The problem I have with facebook (note: I don't have a facebook account) is that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact.
  - ivenkys 16y ago
    "that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact" Thanks for putting this in such clear terms. I am not on FB but whenever i get asked again - this is what i am going to tell them.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
boredguy8 16y ago
I was wondering why Yalp (which I rarely visit) knew about my Facebook account.
markbnine 16y ago
He should do a Stuart Smalley skit to get his point across. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, I have ten thousand friends, and doggone it, people like me!
campnic 16y ago
I'm really on the fence here. On the one hand, its a business and they need to make money to remain viable. On the other, the way the bury the option to turn it off makes me think this could be a lot more transparent. If they feel like they need it to survive, i think they should look at a model where turning it on (opt in) gives you some advantage.

88 points by kp212 16y ago

Aetius 16y ago

No, those links at the bottom aren't adsense. He's not that web savvy!

Qz 16y ago

They aren't going to stop until someone sues the $@%& out of them.

dcurtis 16y ago
Remember News Feed? People freaked out, started screaming about suing, etc. Just watch: people will get more comfortable sharing their basic information, and you will too. This privacy freakout is really amazing to me.
- natrius 16y ago
  The Instant Personalization stuff has potential to actually be an issue, but everything else seems like an overreaction.
  - Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
    Well, yeah, people are getting kind of twitchy about Facebook privacy issues. It's like Water Torture -- the individual drops of water are basically harmless but they just keep falling and you have no idea when the next one's coming. Most people aren't wired to deal with that very well. I've already had to deal with two stupid surprises in the last week: the expansion of their ability to track your use of other sites, and their mandatory conversion of your likes/interests/employer/etc. information into "likes" on an automatically-generated community page. The former is genuinely intrusive, and while the latter is arguably trivial it creates another entire layer of crap I have to manage. (I also lost most of my likes & interests in the conversion because it wasn't clear that disallowing the "like" would actually delete the entry. Pricks.) When I first joined I was kind of amused at my friends who had registered under pseudonyms -- but the benefits are becoming apparent.
- pedalpete 16y ago
  Remember Beacon? The News Feed is shared with people you know, and only people you have added as Friends (or sometimes one step removed when somebody you know comments on a photo or something). Beacon was about selling your information to advertisers and 3rd parties whom you had a very loose connection with. The example being the guy who bought his engagement ring and had it broadcast via facebook before he was even engaged. With the news feed, you control the information which is posted (with the exception of being tagged in photos). Now Facebook is sharing your information with 3rd parties whom you have NO connection with. I don't use Docs, Yelp, or Pandora, but they were given access to all my information. Remember, they were 'given' access before Facebook announced what was happening. Before we had the option to opt-out.
  - dcurtis 16y ago
    Beacon was great because it showed that Facebook isn't scared to take risks. They later admitted it was a bad idea. I'd rather a company like Facebook err on the side of innovation.
    - seldo 16y ago
      Selling my information to third parties without permission or prior notification is neither innovative nor brave.
      - julio_the_squid 16y ago
        I suppose you could say it's 'brave', though, in the same way that trying to swindle someone and hoping they don't notice is brave.
        jrockway 16y ago
        That's not what "brave" means.
        bonaldi 16y ago
- jayair 16y ago
  The demographic is vastly different now. Imagine this sorta thing goes on the 6 o'clock news which parents would interpret as a hazard to their family's privacy. Most of the current demographic will not understand Facebook's privacy settings. And the whole freakout over this is will be blown out of proportion to the point where parents are going to tell each other to "protect" their kids on Facebook or worse demand some sort of legislation that does. One of the biggest reasons I think this might happen is because a vast majority of people still trust what they hear on the TV or radio over some website or online document that says Facebook cares about your privacy.
  - Qz 16y ago
    "Most of the current demographic will not understand Facebook's privacy settings." That's because they're intentionally byzantine.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  This is becoming a FB blindspot. Zuckerburg (and FB in general) now just dismiss all criticism of any changes they make because -- hey! News Feed was criticised. I don't know that betting your business against growing storms of criticism on nothing more than a reverse gambler's fallacy is the best plan, tbh.

wheaties 16y ago

Evidently he's given a lot of thought to the flow and control of personal information posted by users on the internet. It would be nice if websites followed the "opt in" rather than the "opt out" route when it comes to these things. It would be even nicer if some senator made this the defacto standard...

hugh3 16y ago
Do you really want to see this kind of government control of the internet? I can guarantee that any new law designed to prevent facebook privacy violations would wind up having all sorts of awful unintended consequences for the rest of the internet. Hugh's first rule of government: the unintended consequences of any major government action almost always wind up being more significant than the intended consequences. (See also: social security, Iraq war, emancipation proclamation.)
- shaddi 16y ago
  Accidental downvote, sorry. Would have emailed you if you had contact info in your profile.
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
I don't have a problem with opt-out when you sign up for a web service. For example, on Twitter the default is for your stream to be open to the public but you can opt to lock your account so only approved users can follow you. That leads to stronger network effects faster, and creates a more usable tool for everyone. The problem I have with facebook (note: I don't have a facebook account) is that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact.
- ivenkys 16y ago
  "that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact" Thanks for putting this in such clear terms. I am not on FB but whenever i get asked again - this is what i am going to tell them.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

boredguy8 16y ago

I was wondering why Yalp (which I rarely visit) knew about my Facebook account.

markbnine 16y ago

He should do a Stuart Smalley skit to get his point across. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, I have ten thousand friends, and doggone it, people like me!

campnic 16y ago

I'm really on the fence here. On the one hand, its a business and they need to make money to remain viable. On the other, the way the bury the option to turn it off makes me think this could be a lot more transparent. If they feel like they need it to survive, i think they should look at a model where turning it on (opt in) gives you some advantage.