> 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 unders

> 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.