7 ms·

There is a world of difference between citizens complaining how their governments are corrupt, and husbands complaining how their wives boss them around. The fo

There is a world of difference between citizens complaining how their governments are corrupt, and husbands complaining how their wives boss them around. The former is a macro problem - if you're unhappy there's very little you can do to make a difference, you really need everyone to get behind your cause but because of weird behavioral science quirks this happens very rarely. The latter is a micro problem - learn to have the courage to set boundaries in your life, and the problem will go away. Facebook is a problem of the latter form. It's entirely within your control to limit the information you give them, carefully select privacy settings (which are quite extensive), or not create an account at all. In any case, nothing about it is heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space, since the whole thing is voluntary. To me the problem seems the opposite of the camp problem. There are a few "weird" kids who cannot understand how people could possibly like Facebook, so they make it a personal crusade to make it known all the time. Look, our adult society is pretty good at accepting behavioral outliers. Not ideal, but probably the best the world has ever known. But sometimes it's the outlier that's the problem. Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots. Perhaps they treat "Facebook-haters" strangely not because they're not on Facebook, but because they go out of their way to annoy everyone by trying to make a point out of it all the time?

neilk 15y ago
> It's entirely within your control to limit the information you give them, carefully select privacy settings Except Facebook unilaterally changes its guarantees about privacy, year after year, always in its own favor. This takes you up to 2010: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline In 2011 and 2012, they further codified how your private information is also subject to what your friends do. Some of this is common sense, some not so much. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-changes/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-... I'm not saying Facebook is evil, exactly... no more than a parasite is. ;) Their business model doesn't align them with their users' needs for privacy.
- woobar 15y ago
  Actually, 'information you give them' is always within your control.
  - knewter 15y ago
    Unless it's 'zero becaue i don't have an account,' I disagree. I don't know until I land on a site whether they're using fb connect.
    - woobar 15y ago
      It's still within your control to block/not use FB connect even when you have an account.
    - kaybe 15y ago
      Block it, and use another browser for fb and fb only. For very-light users like me (as in, keep a nearly empty profile for the people that use it as default communication) it's not even inconvenient.
fudged 15y ago
I disagree with this actually, for several reasons! You're speaking about the Facebook of yesterday. Within the last year, they have introduced several features which remove the control of your privacy, and distribute the information gathering to your connections. But first, in regards to the Facebook of yesterday, you will find many resources that describe how few people actually change their privacy settings or even understand them. This has improved over time, but I know plenty of intelligent people who don't understand many of the settings that have been introduced over the years. The product that they signed up for isn't the same as it is today. In regards to the reduced control over your own privacy, it's important to note that your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists". You can tell facebook what city someone is in, what university, whether they are in your family, or if they are a close friend. You can add geographic information to other peoples' photos. Also, because of the different levels of update subscriptions, Facebook has made it favorable for people to use the "Life Stories" feature of their profiles/timeslines because they don't know which friends have unsubscribed from seeing "all updates" ("most important" updates most likely implies Life Stories). Also, certain features still have no privacy. Answers to all Facebook Questions are public on your profile. Even as intimate with the privacy settings that I am, I didn't know this! So you either have to not use the feature (which would require knowing about the privacy setting before using it), or deleting these answers after making them. Edit: I forgot to mention that so many people make public posts on Facebook, that you can't comment on any of those without your comments also being public. Most people don't care. So the network is becoming more public, with less opportunity to stay private. And remember that when you comment on those public posts, your comment is shown in the ticker and newsfeeds of your friends (which, in my opinion, is a violation of my privacy. Just because I comment on something doesn't mean I want it notified to my friends). These two actions of public posts have no privacy options... the only thing you can do is avoid commenting on public posts.
- fl3tch 15y ago
  > your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists" I didn't even know about this, but it illustrates that merely signing up exposes you to potential privacy violations. We recently became aware of how much of a liability it is for employers to look at Facebook profiles, because they may learn intimate details about a person's sexual orientation, religion, politics, etc. The only solution is to never look. Likewise, the only way to adequately protect your privacy is to never sign up on Facebook. BTW, this takes care of the employer problem, too.
charlieok 15y ago
You tried camping and it was awesome. It was fun getting a group together and having a lot of interaction with them. Working on projects together, sharing gossip at meals and in tents, going on day trips and coming back with pictures and stories. Great stuff. People who spend time camping together share a bond and become potential lifelong friends. When camping was new, relatively few people went camping. The most exciting, adventurous and challenging way to camp is, of course, to bring your own food and gear and rough it, just you and nature. Some businesses saw an opportunity to introduce a lot more people to camping and make some money. They'd build some cabins around a lake and do some marketing. It's not the same, but most people weren't going to rough it in the woods anyway, right? A Harvard kid announced a new camp one day for other Harvard kids. Everyone who was anyone started going to Mark's camp. If you knew people going to this camp, and you wanted to really connect with them, you had to go to Mark's camp to do it. Sure, there were other ways to connect with them, but Mark's camp is where people are spending a lot of their time and Mark's campfire is where they share their stories. In fact, over a tenth the population of planet Earth has made Mark's camp their hangout. You still love camping as much as you ever did, and you want to connect and share stuff with all your family and friends. But it really grates on you that you have to walk through Mark's gate and live by Mark's rules in order to do that. Isn't there some way you could round up a crew, leave Mark's camp behind, and strike out into the wild somewhere, just you and your friends, to do some real camping?
- charlieok 15y ago
  p.s. If the parent comment resonated with you, you might like this presentation: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/A-P2P-Digital-Self-with-TeleHash http://www.infoq.com/presentations/A-P2P-Digital-Self-with-T...
  - noduerme 15y ago
    That resonated like hitting a 40' bong. I remember ... X person used to say about Y, in my family... "Why the hell would anyone wanna live under his roof, and live by his rules? Even if they had to sleep on the street it'd be better". I reckon it's about the same for self-respecting men living with Zuckerberg.
Tichy 15y ago
"carefully select privacy settings (which are quite extensive)" That's ridiculous. Maybe you'll try a couple of times to keep up with their changes, but eventually you'll just give up. Besides, they will constantly tempt you to share more (that is how they grow).
- kelnos 15y ago
  Then that's your own fault. I check my privacy settings every couple months, or when I hear about or see large changes to the interface or offering getting rolled out. I've been on Facebook since April 2004, only a few months after they launched, so clearly I haven't eventually given up. Using the "View As" feature and looking at your profile page while logged out is a good idea too. If you care about your privacy and still want to be on Facebook, this is (unfortunately) a mandatory activity.
  - grepherder 15y ago
    I can see how it's his own fault from a practical viewpoint, but really? Considering opt-in vs. opt-out, status quo bias and all that? I think he has (people have) a right to criticise at least.
    - kelnos 15y ago
      Sure, we can criticize all we want, but it's unlikely FB won't change without some form of government regulation (which I do not welcome, for the record). Given the assumption that FB won't change, it's each user's individual responsibility to track their privacy settings if they want to maintain a FB account.
  - skrish 15y ago
    "Then that's your own fault". I think that is where we disagree. With any other service when such changes are made you are required to opt-in. I tried to manage privacy via Facebook and just gave up as even the options to make certain areas private went away and I have lost track. I have just given up. I agree with your point that IF you still want to be on Facebook this is a mandatory activity (& yet quite difficult as options just go away!).
jfoster 15y ago
I don't have any serious concerns about privacy because of Facebook, but I do want to point out an aspect where Facebook's privacy controls don't apply. If someone takes a photo of you, they can upload it to Facebook. If they tag you, you can remove the tag. The photo will be there regardless of whether you accept/remove any tagging, and it will be outside the jurisdiction of your privacy controls. The uploader controls the privacy level of a photo, regardless of who the subject of the photo is.
- robertpateii 15y ago
  What you say is true, but it would still be true if Facebook didn't exist. It will always be true because Internet.
  - jfoster 15y ago
    Facebook brings this to the surface. On an Internet without a Facebook-like service, someone may occasionally find a photo of themselves more widely published than they would like. On an Internet with Facebook it happens far more frequently.
    - robertpateii 15y ago
      Regardless, if it wasn't for facebook it would be happening on flickr or instagram or any other sharing site. The problem is a legal one, not something that facebook can simply add as a feature. (Though they do have a way to report a photo in addition to untagging it. And then you explain why that photo violates privacy laws. https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=217091804975136#How-do-I-request-the-removal-of-my-image-for-privacy-law-reasons? https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=217091804975136#How-do-I-...)
  - intended 15y ago
    Still the discussion is - because facebook. Saying because internet here effectively becomes throwing hands in the air and saying "it makes no difference - so why bother?"
kelnos 15y ago
There are a few "weird" kids who cannot understand how people could possibly like Facebook, so they make it a personal crusade to make it known all the time. "I don't have a Facebook account" is the new "I don't even own a TV".
- alanh 15y ago
  It’s really not. Only in the last half-decade or so have we started to fight the datavores.
polynomial 15y ago
> "Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots." I'm not so sure about that. I'm reminded of the recent article & hubbub about the "Girls Around Me" app. My takeaway from that was while people are aware they are exposing all their information, they are ignorant of the myriad consequences and implications until they are directly confronted with them. And in many of the scenarios the Cassandras are warning about, those moments of realisation tend to be past the point of rescue.
ShirtlessRod 15y ago
In the same post you manage to call people who don't like Facebook "weird" and "behavioral outliers" while simultaneously saying it's all their fault because they endlessly go on about how they don't like Facebook. What about those who say nothing about it, yet still need to tolerate people like you calling them a "behavioral outlier"?
- pyre 15y ago
  They don't exist, otherwise he'd have heard of them on Facebook!
gdubs 15y ago
People in History who have been victims of fascism probably didn't see it coming. To say that they were fools or should have known better would be wrong, so it can't be that simple. Whether you agree with Stallman or not, it's a giant elephant in the room. That is, I think, why it made the front page.
tambourine_man 15y ago
Look, our adult society is pretty good at accepting behavioral outliers Boy, do we disagree. Never before has political correctness and "fitting in" been so exalted. In fact Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior. Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots. Not idiots, but completely ignorant as to what they are agreeing with and giving up on.
- pyre 15y ago
  > Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior The only reason that people join Facebook is to prove how politically correct they are, or to 'fit in?' Really?
  - amirmc 15y ago
    Perhaps "direct consequence" isn't the right wording but I do feel there's a valid point about the homogenization of thought, which things like FB (inadvertently?) steer us toward.
  - tambourine_man 15y ago
    Not the only reason. But how often do you see a profile showing something other than successful people having a good time? It's self promotion all over. Just like anonymity lends itself to trolling, personality cult lead to idealized public images.
    - neilk 15y ago
      You remind me of how the teaser trailer for The Social Network is a sequence of happy Facebook photos set to Radiohead's Creep.
richarddunne 15y ago
"In any case, nothing about it is heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space, since the whole thing is voluntary." If you read the information on http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html, you should understand that FB uses individuals' data without their permission or even their knowledge - in clear breach of EU privacy laws.

neilk 15y ago

> It's entirely within your control to limit the information you give them, carefully select privacy settings Except Facebook unilaterally changes its guarantees about privacy, year after year, always in its own favor. This takes you up to 2010: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline In 2011 and 2012, they further codified how your private information is also subject to what your friends do. Some of this is common sense, some not so much. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-changes/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/technology/facebook-privacy-... I'm not saying Facebook is evil, exactly... no more than a parasite is. ;) Their business model doesn't align them with their users' needs for privacy.

woobar 15y ago
Actually, 'information you give them' is always within your control.
- knewter 15y ago
  Unless it's 'zero becaue i don't have an account,' I disagree. I don't know until I land on a site whether they're using fb connect.
  - woobar 15y ago
    It's still within your control to block/not use FB connect even when you have an account.
  - kaybe 15y ago
    Block it, and use another browser for fb and fb only. For very-light users like me (as in, keep a nearly empty profile for the people that use it as default communication) it's not even inconvenient.

fudged 15y ago

I disagree with this actually, for several reasons! You're speaking about the Facebook of yesterday. Within the last year, they have introduced several features which remove the control of your privacy, and distribute the information gathering to your connections. But first, in regards to the Facebook of yesterday, you will find many resources that describe how few people actually change their privacy settings or even understand them. This has improved over time, but I know plenty of intelligent people who don't understand many of the settings that have been introduced over the years. The product that they signed up for isn't the same as it is today. In regards to the reduced control over your own privacy, it's important to note that your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists". You can tell facebook what city someone is in, what university, whether they are in your family, or if they are a close friend. You can add geographic information to other peoples' photos. Also, because of the different levels of update subscriptions, Facebook has made it favorable for people to use the "Life Stories" feature of their profiles/timeslines because they don't know which friends have unsubscribed from seeing "all updates" ("most important" updates most likely implies Life Stories). Also, certain features still have no privacy. Answers to all Facebook Questions are public on your profile. Even as intimate with the privacy settings that I am, I didn't know this! So you either have to not use the feature (which would require knowing about the privacy setting before using it), or deleting these answers after making them. Edit: I forgot to mention that so many people make public posts on Facebook, that you can't comment on any of those without your comments also being public. Most people don't care. So the network is becoming more public, with less opportunity to stay private. And remember that when you comment on those public posts, your comment is shown in the ticker and newsfeeds of your friends (which, in my opinion, is a violation of my privacy. Just because I comment on something doesn't mean I want it notified to my friends). These two actions of public posts have no privacy options... the only thing you can do is avoid commenting on public posts.

fl3tch 15y ago
> your friends can volunteer information about you indirectly by using "smart lists" I didn't even know about this, but it illustrates that merely signing up exposes you to potential privacy violations. We recently became aware of how much of a liability it is for employers to look at Facebook profiles, because they may learn intimate details about a person's sexual orientation, religion, politics, etc. The only solution is to never look. Likewise, the only way to adequately protect your privacy is to never sign up on Facebook. BTW, this takes care of the employer problem, too.

charlieok 15y ago

You tried camping and it was awesome. It was fun getting a group together and having a lot of interaction with them. Working on projects together, sharing gossip at meals and in tents, going on day trips and coming back with pictures and stories. Great stuff. People who spend time camping together share a bond and become potential lifelong friends. When camping was new, relatively few people went camping. The most exciting, adventurous and challenging way to camp is, of course, to bring your own food and gear and rough it, just you and nature. Some businesses saw an opportunity to introduce a lot more people to camping and make some money. They'd build some cabins around a lake and do some marketing. It's not the same, but most people weren't going to rough it in the woods anyway, right? A Harvard kid announced a new camp one day for other Harvard kids. Everyone who was anyone started going to Mark's camp. If you knew people going to this camp, and you wanted to really connect with them, you had to go to Mark's camp to do it. Sure, there were other ways to connect with them, but Mark's camp is where people are spending a lot of their time and Mark's campfire is where they share their stories. In fact, over a tenth the population of planet Earth has made Mark's camp their hangout. You still love camping as much as you ever did, and you want to connect and share stuff with all your family and friends. But it really grates on you that you have to walk through Mark's gate and live by Mark's rules in order to do that. Isn't there some way you could round up a crew, leave Mark's camp behind, and strike out into the wild somewhere, just you and your friends, to do some real camping?

charlieok 15y ago
p.s. If the parent comment resonated with you, you might like this presentation: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/A-P2P-Digital-Self-with-TeleHash http://www.infoq.com/presentations/A-P2P-Digital-Self-with-T...
- noduerme 15y ago
  That resonated like hitting a 40' bong. I remember ... X person used to say about Y, in my family... "Why the hell would anyone wanna live under his roof, and live by his rules? Even if they had to sleep on the street it'd be better". I reckon it's about the same for self-respecting men living with Zuckerberg.

Tichy 15y ago

"carefully select privacy settings (which are quite extensive)" That's ridiculous. Maybe you'll try a couple of times to keep up with their changes, but eventually you'll just give up. Besides, they will constantly tempt you to share more (that is how they grow).

kelnos 15y ago
Then that's your own fault. I check my privacy settings every couple months, or when I hear about or see large changes to the interface or offering getting rolled out. I've been on Facebook since April 2004, only a few months after they launched, so clearly I haven't eventually given up. Using the "View As" feature and looking at your profile page while logged out is a good idea too. If you care about your privacy and still want to be on Facebook, this is (unfortunately) a mandatory activity.
- grepherder 15y ago
  I can see how it's his own fault from a practical viewpoint, but really? Considering opt-in vs. opt-out, status quo bias and all that? I think he has (people have) a right to criticise at least.
  - kelnos 15y ago
    Sure, we can criticize all we want, but it's unlikely FB won't change without some form of government regulation (which I do not welcome, for the record). Given the assumption that FB won't change, it's each user's individual responsibility to track their privacy settings if they want to maintain a FB account.
- skrish 15y ago
  "Then that's your own fault". I think that is where we disagree. With any other service when such changes are made you are required to opt-in. I tried to manage privacy via Facebook and just gave up as even the options to make certain areas private went away and I have lost track. I have just given up. I agree with your point that IF you still want to be on Facebook this is a mandatory activity (& yet quite difficult as options just go away!).

jfoster 15y ago

I don't have any serious concerns about privacy because of Facebook, but I do want to point out an aspect where Facebook's privacy controls don't apply. If someone takes a photo of you, they can upload it to Facebook. If they tag you, you can remove the tag. The photo will be there regardless of whether you accept/remove any tagging, and it will be outside the jurisdiction of your privacy controls. The uploader controls the privacy level of a photo, regardless of who the subject of the photo is.

robertpateii 15y ago
What you say is true, but it would still be true if Facebook didn't exist. It will always be true because Internet.
- jfoster 15y ago
  Facebook brings this to the surface. On an Internet without a Facebook-like service, someone may occasionally find a photo of themselves more widely published than they would like. On an Internet with Facebook it happens far more frequently.
  - robertpateii 15y ago
    Regardless, if it wasn't for facebook it would be happening on flickr or instagram or any other sharing site. The problem is a legal one, not something that facebook can simply add as a feature. (Though they do have a way to report a photo in addition to untagging it. And then you explain why that photo violates privacy laws. https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=217091804975136#How-do-I-request-the-removal-of-my-image-for-privacy-law-reasons? https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=217091804975136#How-do-I-...)
- intended 15y ago
  Still the discussion is - because facebook. Saying because internet here effectively becomes throwing hands in the air and saying "it makes no difference - so why bother?"

kelnos 15y ago

There are a few "weird" kids who cannot understand how people could possibly like Facebook, so they make it a personal crusade to make it known all the time. "I don't have a Facebook account" is the new "I don't even own a TV".

alanh 15y ago
It’s really not. Only in the last half-decade or so have we started to fight the datavores.

polynomial 15y ago

> "Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots." I'm not so sure about that. I'm reminded of the recent article & hubbub about the "Girls Around Me" app. My takeaway from that was while people are aware they are exposing all their information, they are ignorant of the myriad consequences and implications until they are directly confronted with them. And in many of the scenarios the Cassandras are warning about, those moments of realisation tend to be past the point of rescue.

ShirtlessRod 15y ago

In the same post you manage to call people who don't like Facebook "weird" and "behavioral outliers" while simultaneously saying it's all their fault because they endlessly go on about how they don't like Facebook. What about those who say nothing about it, yet still need to tolerate people like you calling them a "behavioral outlier"?

pyre 15y ago
They don't exist, otherwise he'd have heard of them on Facebook!

gdubs 15y ago

People in History who have been victims of fascism probably didn't see it coming. To say that they were fools or should have known better would be wrong, so it can't be that simple. Whether you agree with Stallman or not, it's a giant elephant in the room. That is, I think, why it made the front page.

tambourine_man 15y ago

Look, our adult society is pretty good at accepting behavioral outliers Boy, do we disagree. Never before has political correctness and "fitting in" been so exalted. In fact Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior. Consider that many people don't see Facebook as a privacy issue once they've weighed everything carefully and not because they're idiots. Not idiots, but completely ignorant as to what they are agreeing with and giving up on.

pyre 15y ago
> Facebook is a direct consequence of this behavior The only reason that people join Facebook is to prove how politically correct they are, or to 'fit in?' Really?
- amirmc 15y ago
  Perhaps "direct consequence" isn't the right wording but I do feel there's a valid point about the homogenization of thought, which things like FB (inadvertently?) steer us toward.
- tambourine_man 15y ago
  Not the only reason. But how often do you see a profile showing something other than successful people having a good time? It's self promotion all over. Just like anonymity lends itself to trolling, personality cult lead to idealized public images.
  - neilk 15y ago
    You remind me of how the teaser trailer for The Social Network is a sequence of happy Facebook photos set to Radiohead's Creep.

richarddunne 15y ago

"In any case, nothing about it is heinous violation of your freedom and imposition on your private space, since the whole thing is voluntary." If you read the information on http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html, you should understand that FB uses individuals' data without their permission or even their knowledge - in clear breach of EU privacy laws.