3 ms·

> those are absurd examples to bring up in this discussion. In the context of Facebook they are absurd, but your claim was about society at large, not Facebook

by kareemm 16y ago

> those are absurd examples to bring up in this discussion. In the context of Facebook they are absurd, but your claim was about society at large, not Facebook. > In the context of things people typically share on Facebook, public-by-default is perfectly appropriate. The problem is changing from private-by-default to public-by-default and forcing people to opt-out. Facebook is effectively making the decision about what individuals share using a bait-and-switch. Put another way, it's grow on the backs of their users, then screw them. > Out of all the things people share on Facebook, a small fraction of posts actually need to be private in the eyes of their authors. You mean, in your eyes a small fraction of your posts actually need to be private.

natrius 16y ago
I don't think many people mistakenly chose privacy settings. It's better to have users opt-out of your desired behavior because people are less likely to switch from defaults in general, even when they completely understand them. It's not necessarily underhanded, and given the clarity of Facebook's presentation of the options during the transition[1], I'd say it wasn't underhanded at all. [1] http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/12/how-to-use-facebooks-new-privacy-transition-tool/ http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/12/how-to-use-facebooks-new-... > You mean, in your eyes a small fraction of your posts actually need to be private. That's not what I meant at all. Choose a random Facebook friend who doesn't share posts with everyone. Pick a random post. Ask if she would mind if it were made public. I think the vast majority of the time, the author won't mind. Add that to the people who already share their posts with everyone and don't care. Myspace was public by default. Twitter is public by default. The general public values privacy less than you do, and in my opinion, rightly so.
- kareemm 16y ago
  > It's better to have users opt-out of your desired behavior because people are less likely to switch from defaults in general, even when they completely understand them. That's the point - "your" = "Facebook". Their desired behavior (most data is public) doesn't serve their users' needs. This is one of the key reasons there's such a hue and cry about this - they haven't been able to justify why having this data public is better for their users. > given the clarity of Facebook's presentation of the options during the transition Clarity? Much of this thread is about how poorly Facebook educated its users on what impact its new privacy settings would actually have. Clear as mud, maybe... > That's not what I meant at all. Choose a random Facebook friend who doesn't share posts with everyone. Pick a random post. Ask if she would mind if it were made public. Opinion. We're talking about who makes the decisions about what's "public", where "public" is defined as "available to anybody, searchable by anybody in the world, and archived forever and ever, amen". > Myspace was public by default. Twitter is public by default. That's my point. They were always public by default. Facebook wasn't, and went public without asking users to opt-in. That's a bait and switch. > The general public values privacy less than you do Source? I believe the general public doesn't understand the value of privacy online until it blows up in her face.

by kareemm 16y ago

natrius 16y ago

I don't think many people mistakenly chose privacy settings. It's better to have users opt-out of your desired behavior because people are less likely to switch from defaults in general, even when they completely understand them. It's not necessarily underhanded, and given the clarity of Facebook's presentation of the options during the transition[1], I'd say it wasn't underhanded at all. [1] http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/12/how-to-use-facebooks-new-privacy-transition-tool/ http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/12/how-to-use-facebooks-new-... > You mean, in your eyes a small fraction of your posts actually need to be private. That's not what I meant at all. Choose a random Facebook friend who doesn't share posts with everyone. Pick a random post. Ask if she would mind if it were made public. I think the vast majority of the time, the author won't mind. Add that to the people who already share their posts with everyone and don't care. Myspace was public by default. Twitter is public by default. The general public values privacy less than you do, and in my opinion, rightly so.

kareemm 16y ago
> It's better to have users opt-out of your desired behavior because people are less likely to switch from defaults in general, even when they completely understand them. That's the point - "your" = "Facebook". Their desired behavior (most data is public) doesn't serve their users' needs. This is one of the key reasons there's such a hue and cry about this - they haven't been able to justify why having this data public is better for their users. > given the clarity of Facebook's presentation of the options during the transition Clarity? Much of this thread is about how poorly Facebook educated its users on what impact its new privacy settings would actually have. Clear as mud, maybe... > That's not what I meant at all. Choose a random Facebook friend who doesn't share posts with everyone. Pick a random post. Ask if she would mind if it were made public. Opinion. We're talking about who makes the decisions about what's "public", where "public" is defined as "available to anybody, searchable by anybody in the world, and archived forever and ever, amen". > Myspace was public by default. Twitter is public by default. That's my point. They were always public by default. Facebook wasn't, and went public without asking users to opt-in. That's a bait and switch. > The general public values privacy less than you do Source? I believe the general public doesn't understand the value of privacy online until it blows up in her face.