3 ms·

I see your point. And you are right. I suppose in a sense the problem is fb try to leave everything open by default. And, so, that also is something we need to

by ErrantX 16y ago

I see your point. And you are right. I suppose in a sense the problem is fb try to leave everything open by default. And, so, that also is something we need to argue against.

pasbesoin 16y ago
They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be shared in a restricted, private fashion. If they want to be "all open" with regard to new contributions after the time of such a change in policy, I may as an individual user not like it but then I can choose whether I continue to participate. If they want to open up my previously shared, restricted, private information, that should only occur if I opt-in to the change of availability for that information. Further, it doesn't build a favorable impression to force users to continually monitor both the site and third party sources of news for changes to the site and resulting privacy ramifications, and to force them to navigate numerous on site dialogs -- and third party documentation in order to understand the changes and those dialogs (and now also to locate partner pages on the site in order to use the opt out / block links located only on those pages) -- in order to control to the extend still available what elements of their information are publicized. Maybe for the bulk of users it just won't matter. But for those who do care, this all has done an excellent job of breeding both distrust and a tinge of exhaustion. I wonder what they think the split will be between those who "give in" and those who "get out". Even if a fair number "give in", it's going to be a while, if ever, before they lose the feeling of having been manipulated. In that sense, as I think about it, Facebook is leveraging its position exactly as a bully would. It's using the social environment -- its control of your social connections through its site -- to coerce the behavior it wants. Maybe that's what we should be calling Mr. Zuckerberg and his executive team, a big old bully.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be shared in a restricted, private fashion. It's interesting because, actually, that hasn't happened. Not recently anyway. People have just noticed recently, or taken particular offense. The nice thing now is that it is completely opt out.

by ErrantX 16y ago

I see your point. And you are right. I suppose in a sense the problem is fb try to leave everything open by default. And, so, that also is something we need to argue against.

pasbesoin 16y ago

They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be shared in a restricted, private fashion. If they want to be "all open" with regard to new contributions after the time of such a change in policy, I may as an individual user not like it but then I can choose whether I continue to participate. If they want to open up my previously shared, restricted, private information, that should only occur if I opt-in to the change of availability for that information. Further, it doesn't build a favorable impression to force users to continually monitor both the site and third party sources of news for changes to the site and resulting privacy ramifications, and to force them to navigate numerous on site dialogs -- and third party documentation in order to understand the changes and those dialogs (and now also to locate partner pages on the site in order to use the opt out / block links located only on those pages) -- in order to control to the extend still available what elements of their information are publicized. Maybe for the bulk of users it just won't matter. But for those who do care, this all has done an excellent job of breeding both distrust and a tinge of exhaustion. I wonder what they think the split will be between those who "give in" and those who "get out". Even if a fair number "give in", it's going to be a while, if ever, before they lose the feeling of having been manipulated. In that sense, as I think about it, Facebook is leveraging its position exactly as a bully would. It's using the social environment -- its control of your social connections through its site -- to coerce the behavior it wants. Maybe that's what we should be calling Mr. Zuckerberg and his executive team, a big old bully.

ErrantX 16y ago
> They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be shared in a restricted, private fashion. It's interesting because, actually, that hasn't happened. Not recently anyway. People have just noticed recently, or taken particular offense. The nice thing now is that it is completely opt out.