10 ms·

Facebook is People: Why I Quit Mark Zuckerberg’s Online Collective Data Farm

62 points by astrec 14y ago

markbao 14y ago
That makes me wonder: is the nature of Facebook inherently distrusted, since they have so much data, and those who use it spend so much of their lives on it, or is the distrust based more on their privacy record? What if Facebook had a clean privacy record but still collected all of that data from us, in the name of providing the service (of messages, friends, social—your life on the internet, essentially)? Would they still be suspicious?
- ryandvm 14y ago
  It's creepy because of the business model. You don't pay them to use it, so they have to make money selling information about you. As long as Facebook is free, there's no way around this. The problem of course is that nobody is willing to pay for something like Facebook. It turns out that our privacy isn't worth squat.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    >so they have to make money selling information about you. What does this mean? Who have they sold information to? There is a big difference between selling ones information and using said information to better target ads. I was under the impression they do the latter, which seems perfectly legitimate to me.
    - joering2 14y ago
      by "sold information" he did not necessarily mean they offer it to anyone to buy on a free market: hey Joe, pay us $10 for 1,000 real-life users and their full info, likes, geos, photos, etc etc. But they took money (sold themselves?) to shady individuals like DST, where Milner worked with individuals such as the now jailed tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. I would assume, if you put $200MM into company like Facebook, you have an admin-root access to their databases. With so much cheddar you willing to pump into it, I cannot imagine it to be otherwise. Who knows what they really did with all users information. edit: to make it more clear, I give you an example. Long time ago I have registered for Facebook with my developer email. I am limited with places I've given this email to. But now and then I see emails popping up in my spam mailbox that are extremely closely related to the output I've been given to FB wall, likes etc. Now, I have no proof whatsoever, but I dont see a "problem" why they wouldnt put $200MM into company and have access to all the email addresses organized by what people like, want and then just sell it to spammers (or actually, having your own spam cannon in the net).
    - ryandvm 14y ago
      I don't believe I'm stretching things to call it "selling information about you". Facebook takes money from advertisers and delivers you to them via highly targeted advertising. That is, by purchasing something through a Facebook ad, that seller now knows that you're an 81 year old female in Sarasota Springs in a "complicated" relationship that likes mountain biking. I'm not saying that this transaction is unethical, I just think it's creepy.
- ge0rg 14y ago
  Every large database is of interest to certain groups, be it law enforcement, secret services or criminals (or any combination thereof). Therefore, even with the cleanest privacy record, FB still can be forced to give away your information. This can only be prevented by using decentralized systems, which pose a smaller target to the above groups, or by quitting FB and forbidding all your friends to ever mention you there.
- yuvadam 14y ago
  The answer is a definitive yes. Facebook, on all accounts, is a business. A business is exists in order to make money, full stop. In today's world, user privacy, and ethical values do not exist in the economic formulas. Sure, it makes for great PR. But at the end of the quarter, those "values" would be crushed in an instance to maximize profit. Make no mistake, your interests and Facebook's are completely orthogonal. Facebook is not about "making the world more connected". I pity whoever believes that is true.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    NB: there are for-profit companies who have a corporate charter to create a net social benefit. They're called benefit corporations: http://www.bcorporation.net/ http://www.bcorporation.net/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation Non-profits also frequently serve this role. There's a bit of confounding of this given the rise in popularity of what's called "Cause Marketing". Socially beneficial activities undertaken by (generally) traditional for-profits. Often seen as a marketing benefit. Not bad of itself, but it's helpful to remind companies that token measures don't absolve other actions. It's fair to say that many traditional for-profits don't. Inclusive of social networking for-profits.
    - SpiderX 14y ago
      Facebook isn't one of them. They exist for the sole purpose of providing value to their shareholders. So, any way they can sell your data, they will.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    The problem with Facebook is not that it is a company. It IS with their privacy record. The problem IS corporate misbehavior, not the existence of capitalism.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
I quit for two reasons, 1) I didn't want Facebook mining my data, and 2) It was dull and a waste of time. It doesn't help my procrastination, and the only things I used it for were the occasional IM, and... investigating people I was interested in getting to know
- mnicole 14y ago
  I quit for these very same reasons a few months ago and I truly don't miss the platform. In keeping you 'connected', it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down. No matter how many smart people they hire, the UX of the site is continually worsened with each update, the ads they serve are neither smart or relevant and watching brands ruin their reputations through deleting comments they don't agree with instead of confronting the issues just makes it a terrible place to do anything other than stalk people.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down In what way?
    - mnicole 14y ago
      You attach yourself to acquaintances, close and distant friends, and family members. You end up lumping together people who you do truly value with the noise of people who don't truly matter to you. Does that mean the latter aren't important enough to warrant the friend request or their status updates? Of course not, but now you have this mush of information where no one stands out. You can go through the tedious process of creating groups, but you have to continue to maintain it throughout the life of your account. G+'s circles are truly no better, despite their efforts to try to sell it as such. The dumbing-down part is in relation to the rampant spread of misinformation/fear-mongering at the click of a button (KONY, et al) and the he-said she-said drama that goes on and is exaggerated by outside commenters who wouldn't have otherwise been a part of the dirty laundry.
      - 14y ago
jluan 14y ago
She makes an interesting point of an almost Nozickian demoktesis precursor going on here in the Marxist irony...
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  Nozickian demoktesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Demoktesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dem...
ttt_ 14y ago
>> And even though Mr. Zuckerberg has a controlling interest in Facebook, it now has to be accountable to stockholders. The tension between user privacy and monetizing data in service of stock price is a real one—and seems unlikely to fall on the side of users. That's the thing that botters me the most in this whole thing. If things were already very bleak on the privacy side, that concern has just been blown to smitherings with FB going public. The data mining aggressiveness will only gain momentum as the company is pressured into delivering results to stockholders.
seanwoods 14y ago
This article offers very little insight. It's just a collection of facts that most everyone knows, rounded out with a liberal dose of narcissistic filler. I really wish these articles didn't make it to the front page.
kzahel 14y ago
Facebook will be completely unnecessary in a span. There will be a decentralized solution that accomplishes the "people more connected" goal.
vbtemp 14y ago
I'm wondering: Who else doesn't use facebook? I have an account, sure, back from '05 when I started college. I log in so infrequently that I often get emails from facebook along the lines of "you haven't logged in in 3 months. We think you should come back because...". I never got into that whole thing about walls and public conversations and public comments. I'm far too self-conscious (and I judge far too harshly). The whole thing just drives me nuts. Some of my best friends and I are not even facebook friends.
- samstave 14y ago
  I have never had an account. Never will.
  - 16s 14y ago
    Me neither.
  - LoneWolf 14y ago
    Same happens with me. I never liked facebook and still don't like.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    No Facebook. No Twitter. No Google+. No Tumblr. None of it.
- evandena 14y ago
  I'm in your boat. I have an account, but it's more of a blank place holder. I have zero customization to it, and maybe once a year log into it (only to promptly log out). Back when I was in college, 2003-2007, I remember going to lecture halls and sitting in the back. Every student had a laptop out, and all they were doing was posting garbage on other peoples walls. I was so disgusted with the popularity contest that was facebook, I vowed never to take part in it. I guess I keep it around for the fringe use cases where maybe an old friend will move to my current city, and learn that I live here. Then again, I could close the account and never miss it.
  - 14y ago
neuroelectronic 14y ago
Almost everyone on the internet is on Facebook. All my friends are on Facebook and I'm 30. Imho, facebook has the ability to become the next major communication medium after email, cell phones, phones, telegram.
abruzzi 14y ago
Today not having a Facebook account is kind of like not having TV was (and in some cases, still is) in the past. We state it proudly and often because there are few enough of us that we feel the need to justify ourselves. (I'm firmly in both camps.) The fact is this article doesn't really seem to add anything new, and trots out the same arguments as dozens of other articles I've seen in the last few months. That's not to say it's wrong, just kind of redundant.
- frossie 14y ago
  While you are right that the arguments are pre-existing, I think emotionally there is a discrete change with the IPO. It is one thing to feel like you are surrendering your privacy in order to stay in touch with your friends; it is not entirely another thing to surrender your privacy for the geeks providing the platform to make money to support and extend the platform. Surrendering your privacy so that an institutional shareholder can make money is, emotionally, a different proposition and this is what the OP demonstrates. It's not that people didn't willingly surrender privacy before the Internet; but then, like now, it was done in a two-way transaction. The classic example is building intimacy with, say, your spouse, by telling them something that nobody else knows. It is entirely possible that with Facebook a public company, some people (who were previously content) will re-evaluate whether they like the other side of the transaction.
  - abruzzi 14y ago
    This is a good point, and a new nuance on familiar arguments. It's still the same argument, but now with fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
- Estragon 14y ago
  Someone should redo the Onion "Area man doesn't own a TV" article to target people like us.
abruzzi 14y ago
Today not having a Facebook account is kind of like not having TV was (and in some cases, still is) in the past. We state it proudly and often because there are few enough of us that we feel the need to justify ourselves. (I'm firmly in both camps.) The fact is this article doesn't really seem to add anything new, and trots out the same arguments as dozens of other articles I've seen in the last few months. That's not to say it's wrong, just kind of redundant.
jrockway 14y ago
What I get from this article is that the author doesn't like his friends. Facebook isn't forcing anyone to show too much cleavage during Spring Break. The solution is to get friends who share the same ideals as you. (Another problem is that you want to grant access to your profile to someone, but you don't necessarily want to see their spam posts. If only there was some way to put people in "circles" or something...)
- sdqali 14y ago
  1. I have felt that there is an implicit social pressure on you to accept friend request from some people. Example:- A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do? 2. I think they introduced the 'Subscribe' feature to address the need for asymmetric sharing.
  - theorique 14y ago
    A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do? Accept the friend request, hide all their updates from showing on your news feed, and put them on limited profile view is one possible option.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Yes, and after you become this much of an expert on where to find all these settings, remember to keep checking your settings because Facebook has a history of opting you into things you already refused behind your back.
      - theorique 14y ago
        I trust the internet hive mind to announce changes in Facebook privacy settings with all the subtlety of a fire engine. ;)
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
GoodIntentions 14y ago
some beautifully pointed satire from "The IT Crowd" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg pretty much sums up my feelings...
adestefan 14y ago
I'm not sure that the author's reflection of the difference between Google and Facebook holds up. Google Search will get you other places while slurping up all your data, but every other Google property is more akin to Facebook.
scribblemacher 14y ago
Of my approximately 150 friends on Facebook, it seems like it's only the same 10-15 wankers actually posting things and liking stuff. I suspect that the majority of Facebook users are like me---logging in once and awhile to see if they got a message, not posting anything, then going on with their lives.
a3d6g2f7 14y ago
Right on, Elise. What users demand is what programmers will deliver. This is why it is so important for users to become educated about computers and networking. You cannot ask for what you do not know exists. There are other ways to achieve "social networking" besides using only Zuckerberg's website and submitting to his warped ideas about human civilisation. Collect the email addresses and contact info of all your Facebook friends now. You will need them in time when you will have your own "social network". A return to decentralisation is coming. It is inevitable. Everything goes in cycles. What's going to get us ethere is that centralisation has been abused to an unacceptable extent, by a sociopathic kid who is still maturing. Unfortunately he's maturing a little too slowly. I'm not sure users will have the patience to wait. They want an alternative. FB's only value is your personal data. They will likely end up having to give it back to you. The web is going to get better. This is exciting.
sharkweek 14y ago
Here's a great simple rule -- Don't post anything particularly personal, keep your interests and likes to a bare minimum, delete any "friend" that you would intentionally avoid if you saw in a grocery store.
redwood 14y ago
Jeez, dancing grateful dead bears and prop 19---I must have fit in the exact same marketing box as the author
voyou 14y ago
"It’s then either a post-modern joke or a Marxist irony (or both at once) that we are able to buy shares of us. But either way, I don’t want you buying shares of me." I've seen arguments like this made a few times, and I find them fascinating in the way they treat "data about me" and "me" as synonymous. It's like that old story about people who believed taking a photograph would steal your soul.
qq66 14y ago
Not using Facebook is the new not having a television. It doesn't gain you anything, nor does it cost you anything, and somehow everyone who does it thinks that someone else out there cares.

62 points by astrec 14y ago

That makes me wonder: is the nature of Facebook inherently distrusted, since they have so much data, and those who use it spend so much of their lives on it, or is the distrust based more on their privacy record? What if Facebook had a clean privacy record but still collected all of that data from us, in the name of providing the service (of messages, friends, social—your life on the internet, essentially)? Would they still be suspicious?

ryandvm 14y ago
It's creepy because of the business model. You don't pay them to use it, so they have to make money selling information about you. As long as Facebook is free, there's no way around this. The problem of course is that nobody is willing to pay for something like Facebook. It turns out that our privacy isn't worth squat.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  >so they have to make money selling information about you. What does this mean? Who have they sold information to? There is a big difference between selling ones information and using said information to better target ads. I was under the impression they do the latter, which seems perfectly legitimate to me.
  - joering2 14y ago
    by "sold information" he did not necessarily mean they offer it to anyone to buy on a free market: hey Joe, pay us $10 for 1,000 real-life users and their full info, likes, geos, photos, etc etc. But they took money (sold themselves?) to shady individuals like DST, where Milner worked with individuals such as the now jailed tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. I would assume, if you put $200MM into company like Facebook, you have an admin-root access to their databases. With so much cheddar you willing to pump into it, I cannot imagine it to be otherwise. Who knows what they really did with all users information. edit: to make it more clear, I give you an example. Long time ago I have registered for Facebook with my developer email. I am limited with places I've given this email to. But now and then I see emails popping up in my spam mailbox that are extremely closely related to the output I've been given to FB wall, likes etc. Now, I have no proof whatsoever, but I dont see a "problem" why they wouldnt put $200MM into company and have access to all the email addresses organized by what people like, want and then just sell it to spammers (or actually, having your own spam cannon in the net).
  - ryandvm 14y ago
    I don't believe I'm stretching things to call it "selling information about you". Facebook takes money from advertisers and delivers you to them via highly targeted advertising. That is, by purchasing something through a Facebook ad, that seller now knows that you're an 81 year old female in Sarasota Springs in a "complicated" relationship that likes mountain biking. I'm not saying that this transaction is unethical, I just think it's creepy.
ge0rg 14y ago
Every large database is of interest to certain groups, be it law enforcement, secret services or criminals (or any combination thereof). Therefore, even with the cleanest privacy record, FB still can be forced to give away your information. This can only be prevented by using decentralized systems, which pose a smaller target to the above groups, or by quitting FB and forbidding all your friends to ever mention you there.
yuvadam 14y ago
The answer is a definitive yes. Facebook, on all accounts, is a business. A business is exists in order to make money, full stop. In today's world, user privacy, and ethical values do not exist in the economic formulas. Sure, it makes for great PR. But at the end of the quarter, those "values" would be crushed in an instance to maximize profit. Make no mistake, your interests and Facebook's are completely orthogonal. Facebook is not about "making the world more connected". I pity whoever believes that is true.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  NB: there are for-profit companies who have a corporate charter to create a net social benefit. They're called benefit corporations: http://www.bcorporation.net/ http://www.bcorporation.net/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation Non-profits also frequently serve this role. There's a bit of confounding of this given the rise in popularity of what's called "Cause Marketing". Socially beneficial activities undertaken by (generally) traditional for-profits. Often seen as a marketing benefit. Not bad of itself, but it's helpful to remind companies that token measures don't absolve other actions. It's fair to say that many traditional for-profits don't. Inclusive of social networking for-profits.
  - SpiderX 14y ago
    Facebook isn't one of them. They exist for the sole purpose of providing value to their shareholders. So, any way they can sell your data, they will.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  The problem with Facebook is not that it is a company. It IS with their privacy record. The problem IS corporate misbehavior, not the existence of capitalism.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

I quit for two reasons, 1) I didn't want Facebook mining my data, and 2) It was dull and a waste of time. It doesn't help my procrastination, and the only things I used it for were the occasional IM, and... investigating people I was interested in getting to know

mnicole 14y ago
I quit for these very same reasons a few months ago and I truly don't miss the platform. In keeping you 'connected', it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down. No matter how many smart people they hire, the UX of the site is continually worsened with each update, the ads they serve are neither smart or relevant and watching brands ruin their reputations through deleting comments they don't agree with instead of confronting the issues just makes it a terrible place to do anything other than stalk people.
- jrockway 14y ago
  it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down In what way?
  - mnicole 14y ago
    You attach yourself to acquaintances, close and distant friends, and family members. You end up lumping together people who you do truly value with the noise of people who don't truly matter to you. Does that mean the latter aren't important enough to warrant the friend request or their status updates? Of course not, but now you have this mush of information where no one stands out. You can go through the tedious process of creating groups, but you have to continue to maintain it throughout the life of your account. G+'s circles are truly no better, despite their efforts to try to sell it as such. The dumbing-down part is in relation to the rampant spread of misinformation/fear-mongering at the click of a button (KONY, et al) and the he-said she-said drama that goes on and is exaggerated by outside commenters who wouldn't have otherwise been a part of the dirty laundry.
    - 14y ago

jluan 14y ago

She makes an interesting point of an almost Nozickian demoktesis precursor going on here in the Marxist irony...

SkyMarshal 14y ago
Nozickian demoktesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Demoktesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dem...

ttt_ 14y ago

>> And even though Mr. Zuckerberg has a controlling interest in Facebook, it now has to be accountable to stockholders. The tension between user privacy and monetizing data in service of stock price is a real one—and seems unlikely to fall on the side of users. That's the thing that botters me the most in this whole thing. If things were already very bleak on the privacy side, that concern has just been blown to smitherings with FB going public. The data mining aggressiveness will only gain momentum as the company is pressured into delivering results to stockholders.

seanwoods 14y ago

This article offers very little insight. It's just a collection of facts that most everyone knows, rounded out with a liberal dose of narcissistic filler. I really wish these articles didn't make it to the front page.

kzahel 14y ago

Facebook will be completely unnecessary in a span. There will be a decentralized solution that accomplishes the "people more connected" goal.

vbtemp 14y ago

I'm wondering: Who else doesn't use facebook? I have an account, sure, back from '05 when I started college. I log in so infrequently that I often get emails from facebook along the lines of "you haven't logged in in 3 months. We think you should come back because...". I never got into that whole thing about walls and public conversations and public comments. I'm far too self-conscious (and I judge far too harshly). The whole thing just drives me nuts. Some of my best friends and I are not even facebook friends.

samstave 14y ago
I have never had an account. Never will.
- 16s 14y ago
  Me neither.
- LoneWolf 14y ago
  Same happens with me. I never liked facebook and still don't like.
- ams6110 14y ago
  No Facebook. No Twitter. No Google+. No Tumblr. None of it.
evandena 14y ago
I'm in your boat. I have an account, but it's more of a blank place holder. I have zero customization to it, and maybe once a year log into it (only to promptly log out). Back when I was in college, 2003-2007, I remember going to lecture halls and sitting in the back. Every student had a laptop out, and all they were doing was posting garbage on other peoples walls. I was so disgusted with the popularity contest that was facebook, I vowed never to take part in it. I guess I keep it around for the fringe use cases where maybe an old friend will move to my current city, and learn that I live here. Then again, I could close the account and never miss it.
- 14y ago

neuroelectronic 14y ago

Almost everyone on the internet is on Facebook. All my friends are on Facebook and I'm 30. Imho, facebook has the ability to become the next major communication medium after email, cell phones, phones, telegram.

abruzzi 14y ago

Today not having a Facebook account is kind of like not having TV was (and in some cases, still is) in the past. We state it proudly and often because there are few enough of us that we feel the need to justify ourselves. (I'm firmly in both camps.) The fact is this article doesn't really seem to add anything new, and trots out the same arguments as dozens of other articles I've seen in the last few months. That's not to say it's wrong, just kind of redundant.

frossie 14y ago
While you are right that the arguments are pre-existing, I think emotionally there is a discrete change with the IPO. It is one thing to feel like you are surrendering your privacy in order to stay in touch with your friends; it is not entirely another thing to surrender your privacy for the geeks providing the platform to make money to support and extend the platform. Surrendering your privacy so that an institutional shareholder can make money is, emotionally, a different proposition and this is what the OP demonstrates. It's not that people didn't willingly surrender privacy before the Internet; but then, like now, it was done in a two-way transaction. The classic example is building intimacy with, say, your spouse, by telling them something that nobody else knows. It is entirely possible that with Facebook a public company, some people (who were previously content) will re-evaluate whether they like the other side of the transaction.
- abruzzi 14y ago
  This is a good point, and a new nuance on familiar arguments. It's still the same argument, but now with fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
Estragon 14y ago
Someone should redo the Onion "Area man doesn't own a TV" article to target people like us.

abruzzi 14y ago

jrockway 14y ago

What I get from this article is that the author doesn't like his friends. Facebook isn't forcing anyone to show too much cleavage during Spring Break. The solution is to get friends who share the same ideals as you. (Another problem is that you want to grant access to your profile to someone, but you don't necessarily want to see their spam posts. If only there was some way to put people in "circles" or something...)

sdqali 14y ago
1. I have felt that there is an implicit social pressure on you to accept friend request from some people. Example:- A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do? 2. I think they introduced the 'Subscribe' feature to address the need for asymmetric sharing.
- theorique 14y ago
  A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do? Accept the friend request, hide all their updates from showing on your news feed, and put them on limited profile view is one possible option.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Yes, and after you become this much of an expert on where to find all these settings, remember to keep checking your settings because Facebook has a history of opting you into things you already refused behind your back.
    - theorique 14y ago
      I trust the internet hive mind to announce changes in Facebook privacy settings with all the subtlety of a fire engine. ;)
- tlrobinson 14y ago

GoodIntentions 14y ago

some beautifully pointed satire from "The IT Crowd" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg pretty much sums up my feelings...

adestefan 14y ago

I'm not sure that the author's reflection of the difference between Google and Facebook holds up. Google Search will get you other places while slurping up all your data, but every other Google property is more akin to Facebook.

scribblemacher 14y ago

Of my approximately 150 friends on Facebook, it seems like it's only the same 10-15 wankers actually posting things and liking stuff. I suspect that the majority of Facebook users are like me---logging in once and awhile to see if they got a message, not posting anything, then going on with their lives.

a3d6g2f7 14y ago

Right on, Elise. What users demand is what programmers will deliver. This is why it is so important for users to become educated about computers and networking. You cannot ask for what you do not know exists. There are other ways to achieve "social networking" besides using only Zuckerberg's website and submitting to his warped ideas about human civilisation. Collect the email addresses and contact info of all your Facebook friends now. You will need them in time when you will have your own "social network". A return to decentralisation is coming. It is inevitable. Everything goes in cycles. What's going to get us ethere is that centralisation has been abused to an unacceptable extent, by a sociopathic kid who is still maturing. Unfortunately he's maturing a little too slowly. I'm not sure users will have the patience to wait. They want an alternative. FB's only value is your personal data. They will likely end up having to give it back to you. The web is going to get better. This is exciting.

sharkweek 14y ago

Here's a great simple rule -- Don't post anything particularly personal, keep your interests and likes to a bare minimum, delete any "friend" that you would intentionally avoid if you saw in a grocery store.

redwood 14y ago

Jeez, dancing grateful dead bears and prop 19---I must have fit in the exact same marketing box as the author

voyou 14y ago

"It’s then either a post-modern joke or a Marxist irony (or both at once) that we are able to buy shares of us. But either way, I don’t want you buying shares of me." I've seen arguments like this made a few times, and I find them fascinating in the way they treat "data about me" and "me" as synonymous. It's like that old story about people who believed taking a photograph would steal your soul.

qq66 14y ago

Not using Facebook is the new not having a television. It doesn't gain you anything, nor does it cost you anything, and somehow everyone who does it thinks that someone else out there cares.