I can imagine this, especially with friends who "friend all over the place". My own network of friends, and most of their friends, have remained much more cont

I can imagine this, especially with friends who "friend all over the place". My own network of friends, and most of their friends, have remained much more contained. People who want to be in touch with real friends, not "products" or random encounters or "networking". However, did Facebook use this as an argument for their change? I've not seen them doing so. And I'm reminded of the whole "profile pictures are now forcibly changed to be public" policy, earlier. It may help people who don't know each other much and have no other avenue of communication, to "friend" each other. (Is that the right John/Jane Smith?) But, again in my anecdotal case, real friends can communicate out-of-band which is the right profile. They're already in touch; Facebook, just allows for asynchronous group sharing and discussion (or did, once upon a "simpler" time). The response to the "profile pictures must be public"? Those with privacy concerns no longer have a profile picture that shows them, if they ever did. Real names, too. That one helps to align collected data with data sales and advertising. And, for connecting less strong social connections. I understand the desire to "connect the world", especially in its more altruistic aspect. But, once again, Facebook quasi forced it. Whereas, social connections and sharing tend to work better when they are "opt in". Not opt out, or even no ability to opt out.