4 ms·

What could kill Facebook would be a solution that respects people's privacy needs and doesn't try to change people in this respect. This is obviously only one p

What could kill Facebook would be a solution that respects people's privacy needs and doesn't try to change people in this respect. This is obviously only one piece of the solution, but Facebook are setting themselves up for this market entrypoint / wedge (recall Friendster's war on Fakesters). Facebook is trying to change people rather than serve their needs.

MisterWebz 16y ago
A social network, that relies on its good privacy options to attract visitors, would definitely not compete with Facebook. In fact, i'm pretty sure most people on Facebook don't even care that much about their privacy.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  That they care or not is often irrelevant. People often don't even know about Facebook's privacy issues.
- adrianscott 16y ago
  agreed. people do care about 'uncomfortable' moments though... your friends' mom sees your embarassing pics and tells your mom... those photos of your lawyer in a bikini getting sent around the industry...
alain94040 16y ago
No one cares about privacy. At least no significant number of the 500M users of Facebook. At best, maybe a million cares? And I'm being generous. Not even a thorn on Facebook's side.
- evancaine 16y ago
  I disagree. People do care about privacy, they just have no way to show it other than to quit facebook and that's something they're not prepared to do. They'd rather put up with poor privacy controls and keep their account than have no account at all. Just because they're not leaving now, doesn't mean they won't leave when a viable alternative to facebook comes up.
  - edge17 16y ago
    People care about privacy, but they become complacent in giving it up. Remember the days when people were too scared to put their credit card into an internet website? Things have changed a lot since then, and it's hardly been 10 years.
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    Yeah, I remember telling my increasingly wall-eyed girlfriend about all the data facebook collects and what they do with it and why this means we and everyone we know should switch to the first viable alternative. Her response: "So what? How does it change my life one bit if every company in the world knows exactly what I buy on the internet and what's on my facebook profile? It's not like there are naked or even particularly embarassing pictures there. I just want to see if someone I used to go to school with is fat/a skank/ugly/got religion and then check back in a month or two to see if it's still true. If I can do that, I don't care what Facebook knows about me or who they sell it to."
- keefe 16y ago
  Right, they don't care right now. We're in the infancy of the internet age. Once the culture matures, we may see more predators preying on this information at which point privacy will become a hot button topic (for a while). This could be con artists or the "facebook serial killer" or whatever. Also, the users that care about privacy (e.g. me) aren't on facebook...
- adrianscott 16y ago
  A lot of people didn't care about social networking before it became prevalent also, but that didn't mean there was a social networking opportunity. I have some track record in spotting opportunities, esp. in social networking. This is one piece of the puzzle in outflanking facebook and a vulnerability they've chosen, imho. The privacy of the initial years of facebook was a significant ingredient in their success. Clearly the competitor will not be 'the same as fb but w/ privacy'. We can find ways to say no, or create ways to make 'yes'. ;)
philwelch 16y ago
It's hard to see how you can reconcile privacy paranoia with social networking anyway.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Dead simple: just tell what you want to, to whom you want to, and no one else. Just like you would with reasonable tools like e-mail, instant messaging, or physical interaction. Normal, ordinary social networking. Ironically, Facebook, doesn't let you do just that. Now, you probably use the term "social networking" for something different from "interacting with people". If so, I'd like to know how you define social networking.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    If your idea of social networking is fulfilled by email, instant messaging, and physical interaction, then why would you want another tool that did things fundamentally differently anyway? That's a classic case of "you have no need for Facebook", not "Facebook is evil because it doesn't do what you'd like".
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Actually, I don't (want another tool). So, of course it's a case of "I have no need for Faceboook" (though I do think Facebook is evil). Now I asked a question. Let me reformulate it: how do you define "social networking"? Why do you thing it is hard to reconcile it with privacy paranoia?
      - philwelch 16y ago
        I don't think the term "social networking" is amenable to a formal, logical definition. It's mostly a category used to describe sites like Facebook, MySpace, or Loopt (previously Friendster and Orkut) so any site or service resembling those would be social networking. (Please refer here for the type of theory I am applying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory) So far the most successful of those sites is Facebook; Facebook is difficult to use if one is paranoid about one's privacy. None of the other partial or past successes were successful due to their exceptional concern for privacy. One does not join a site designed for sharing things with other people in order to hide things from other people.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
Almost, but not quite. An alternative also has to deliver guarantees. It has to be impossible for the potential alternative to be mean. Fortunately for Facebook, that would mean that each user of this alternative has a personal server at home to run it. And with hurdles such as asymmetric DSL, dynamic IP, Firewalls, NAT routers, and plain ignorance (the internet is very young and few people actually know what it is yet), it will take time. Two decades at least.

MisterWebz 16y ago

A social network, that relies on its good privacy options to attract visitors, would definitely not compete with Facebook. In fact, i'm pretty sure most people on Facebook don't even care that much about their privacy.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
That they care or not is often irrelevant. People often don't even know about Facebook's privacy issues.
adrianscott 16y ago
agreed. people do care about 'uncomfortable' moments though... your friends' mom sees your embarassing pics and tells your mom... those photos of your lawyer in a bikini getting sent around the industry...

alain94040 16y ago

No one cares about privacy. At least no significant number of the 500M users of Facebook. At best, maybe a million cares? And I'm being generous. Not even a thorn on Facebook's side.

evancaine 16y ago
I disagree. People do care about privacy, they just have no way to show it other than to quit facebook and that's something they're not prepared to do. They'd rather put up with poor privacy controls and keep their account than have no account at all. Just because they're not leaving now, doesn't mean they won't leave when a viable alternative to facebook comes up.
- edge17 16y ago
  People care about privacy, but they become complacent in giving it up. Remember the days when people were too scared to put their credit card into an internet website? Things have changed a lot since then, and it's hardly been 10 years.
- neutronicus 16y ago
  Yeah, I remember telling my increasingly wall-eyed girlfriend about all the data facebook collects and what they do with it and why this means we and everyone we know should switch to the first viable alternative. Her response: "So what? How does it change my life one bit if every company in the world knows exactly what I buy on the internet and what's on my facebook profile? It's not like there are naked or even particularly embarassing pictures there. I just want to see if someone I used to go to school with is fat/a skank/ugly/got religion and then check back in a month or two to see if it's still true. If I can do that, I don't care what Facebook knows about me or who they sell it to."
keefe 16y ago
Right, they don't care right now. We're in the infancy of the internet age. Once the culture matures, we may see more predators preying on this information at which point privacy will become a hot button topic (for a while). This could be con artists or the "facebook serial killer" or whatever. Also, the users that care about privacy (e.g. me) aren't on facebook...
adrianscott 16y ago
A lot of people didn't care about social networking before it became prevalent also, but that didn't mean there was a social networking opportunity. I have some track record in spotting opportunities, esp. in social networking. This is one piece of the puzzle in outflanking facebook and a vulnerability they've chosen, imho. The privacy of the initial years of facebook was a significant ingredient in their success. Clearly the competitor will not be 'the same as fb but w/ privacy'. We can find ways to say no, or create ways to make 'yes'. ;)

philwelch 16y ago

It's hard to see how you can reconcile privacy paranoia with social networking anyway.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
Dead simple: just tell what you want to, to whom you want to, and no one else. Just like you would with reasonable tools like e-mail, instant messaging, or physical interaction. Normal, ordinary social networking. Ironically, Facebook, doesn't let you do just that. Now, you probably use the term "social networking" for something different from "interacting with people". If so, I'd like to know how you define social networking.
- philwelch 16y ago
  If your idea of social networking is fulfilled by email, instant messaging, and physical interaction, then why would you want another tool that did things fundamentally differently anyway? That's a classic case of "you have no need for Facebook", not "Facebook is evil because it doesn't do what you'd like".
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Actually, I don't (want another tool). So, of course it's a case of "I have no need for Faceboook" (though I do think Facebook is evil). Now I asked a question. Let me reformulate it: how do you define "social networking"? Why do you thing it is hard to reconcile it with privacy paranoia?
    - philwelch 16y ago
      I don't think the term "social networking" is amenable to a formal, logical definition. It's mostly a category used to describe sites like Facebook, MySpace, or Loopt (previously Friendster and Orkut) so any site or service resembling those would be social networking. (Please refer here for the type of theory I am applying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory) So far the most successful of those sites is Facebook; Facebook is difficult to use if one is paranoid about one's privacy. None of the other partial or past successes were successful due to their exceptional concern for privacy. One does not join a site designed for sharing things with other people in order to hide things from other people.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

Almost, but not quite. An alternative also has to deliver guarantees. It has to be impossible for the potential alternative to be mean. Fortunately for Facebook, that would mean that each user of this alternative has a personal server at home to run it. And with hurdles such as asymmetric DSL, dynamic IP, Firewalls, NAT routers, and plain ignorance (the internet is very young and few people actually know what it is yet), it will take time. Two decades at least.