> Not everything on the internet needs to be public (or part of the "open web" as the article calls it). Indeed, and since the beginning of the web there have

> Not everything on the internet needs to be public (or part of the "open web" as the article calls it). Indeed, and since the beginning of the web there have been ways to create private content. The old-fashioned solutions give real control to the user. > Facebook is a fantastic place for web content that isn't meant to be public. Not really, because: a) you have no control over the platform -- the notion of private can change on a FB's whim and there is nothing you can do -- and b) you have no control over whom your content actually reaches, FB's opaque algorithm does. > Is Facebook actively encouraging this web breaking behaviour or is it a "mis-use" of what the tool originally intended Can you remember FB ever complaining that people should use the open web for some of the stuff that goes on in there? I don't mean to offend you, but I would say that you have to be a bit naive to believe that they do not desire to turn the web into a walled garden under their complete control.