...to believe that information on Facebook or other social networks is inherently private or “yours” is just wrong. If the "victim" didn't want to get raped, s

...to believe that information on Facebook or other social networks is inherently private or “yours” is just wrong. If the "victim" didn't want to get raped, she should have dressed less provocatively, not gone out after dark, and not had those drinks. It's the same argument, and it's just as wrongheaded and lame. The argument fails in both cases for the same reason: It ignores the larger social context of behavior. It's ironic that the "you shouldn't have trusted social media" argument is sociopathic and antisocial. It fails to see the social nature of social media! The complex matrix of interdependencies that make civilization (writ large) and social media (writ small) possible depend upon a notion of trust that depends upon both parties seeing beyond "I'll do whatever I can to you if I can get away with it." The relationship between a user of a social media site and its user has to be one of trust because the media site holds the power. If FB really cannot hold up its end of the deal, then it really isn't the social media site that will fill that need. It's positively stupid of Zuckerberg to think he's going to get good data in the long run by betraying his users now. FB will either be replaced via market forces or destroy the social niche through its monopoly. Bluntly, people will choose another option if they can or sabotage their data if they can't.